User talk:04Egerton L

04Egerton L, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 04Egerton L! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 04Egerton L, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with respect to your edits at John Bercow, you should use edit summaries for each edit you make. It clues other editors into what you are doing. It's particularly important when there is a content dispute. It's generally not a good idea to fight when someone disputes one of your edits. The best thing to do is open a topic at the article Talk page and discuss the pros and cons of the material, something we call building a WP:CONSENSUS. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Nick Griffin. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nick Griffin 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continued disruptive editing and lack of response or any communication over changes that require sourcing, as you did at Nick Griffin. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to John Bercow. Thank you. Tmol42 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Kiwi128. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Idi Amin without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kiwi128 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Idi Amin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Idi Amin, you may be blocked from editing. William Avery (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Idi Amin. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(talk) 11:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bgwhite (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]