User talk:Travelin shuz

re your edits at New Testament Christian Churches of America

We're going to need some point-by-point discussion of the material that you wish to delete, especially counter-sourcing for points which are sourced now. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your deletion this material without explanation. The thread is User:Travelin shuz sanitizing New Testament Christian Churches of America. Thank you.

Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at New Testament Christian Churches of America, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. You need to stop this. See WP:DEADREF. You are deleting material without a discussion and without a good rationale. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a reference becomes a dead link, you can flag it with the {{dead link}} template. However, it's still a valid link. Other editors have been finding archived links for the sources you've been deleting.

In the future, do not delete references with dead links; do feel free to tag the links as dead. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at New Testament Christian Churches of America, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several deletes due to dead links [4] [5] & [6] in this article. What is wrong with that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelin shuz (talk • contribs) (left at User talk:C.Fred)

It's disruptive. You're deleting material that is properly attributed to a reliable source. Just because the source is no longer available online, that doesn't invalidate the reference or the material. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at New Testament Christian Churches of America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were repeatedly advised that it is against established practice to delete references because the links have gone dead. You kept doing it. As a result:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]