User talk:Henryemilysuzie

September 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vivienne Westwood, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Vivienne Westwood. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Westwood

I undid your edit to Vivienne Westwood as it was unreferenced. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. To add a reference, please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. There is a tool that can help: See wp:RefToolbar/2.0. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Your edits are saved in the wp:page history. Please add references when you restore the content. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page content

User pages are to give info on you, etc. Talk directed to other users should go here. See help:user pages, help:talk pages. You have the wp:BURDEN to supply valid RS. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Vivienne Westwood. Jim1138 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add it again without RS. Though it does not apply to your user page, I would suggest reading wp:ALLCAPS Jim1138 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Your recent editing history at Vivienne Westwood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Vivienne Westwood. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You have seen fit to evade your block, using 92.40.248.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If anything similar happens again, I'll make your block indefinite! Favonian (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

Continuing your disruptive edit-warring, this time using 94.197.121.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and for lacking basic competence, you are now blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Henryemilysuzie

A tag has been placed on User:Henryemilysuzie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G3, G10, senseless attack on another wikipedia user nqr9. G11

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]