User talk:David Corriveau & James Corley

April 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dell has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dell was changed by David Corriveau & James Corley (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863656 on 2015-04-30T23:06:42+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Joseph2302. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dell, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dell, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If this is the case, add a reliable source saying so. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Dell. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dell. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:David_Corriveau_&_James_Corley reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]