User talk:EthelMermanknows

November 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that you know as much about Shakespeare as a peanut. All your witless edits will simply be reverted. Geddit? The sheer childishness of your actions reflects on your belief system. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC) It is necessary for Paul B to engage in insults and personal attacks because the dogma he's defending is ludicrous. Because of the pro-Stratfordian bias on Wikipedia, he will not be punished. STAY OFF MY userpage, Paul Barlow. YOU ARE AN IGNORANT FOOL.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

What's your main account? Please use it for editing. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC).

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HenryVIIIyes. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't engage in revert warring, even if you believe that you are right. Instead, discuss the changes on the relevant talk page. If a particular hypothesis is generally regarded by the experts as a fringe theory, the Wikipedia article must describe it as such; it can't claim as a fact that there's a conspiracy aimed at its suppression. (See the relevant policies and guidelines: neutrality, coverage of fringe theories, undue weight.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

For sockpuppetry and revert warring, I have blocked the account User:Ian.tompson indefinitely, and your account for a week. This is your final warning: should you continue disrupting the article by revert warring and adding partisan material to it, or should you attempt to avoid your block by creating another account, all your accounts will be blocked indefinitely. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for avoidance of block. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)