User talk:Jshan826

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Optometry shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. SMS ^Talk 21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optometrist/ ophthalmic optician

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jshan826 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. here. SMS ^Talk 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Optometry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have just made effectively the same edit again that got you an edit-warring block, just worded a bit differently this time and in a slightly different place - but that still counts as a resumption of the edit-war. You have added a claim that optometrists are doctors, without a source to support it, and it has been reverted by several other editors. That means your addition is disputed, and you must now discuss it on the Talk page (presenting sources to support it) and get a consensus before you can add it again. Should you resume the edit war when this current block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 week from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing your edit war while logged out, I have reset your block duration to 1 week, starting now - and I have protected the article against logged-out and unconfirmed editing for the same period. If you have found a reliable source supporting "optometrists are sometimes called x", then you may be able to add it, but you cannot just replace sourced material that says "optometrists are sometimes called y" - the encyclopedia is not US-only, and if different names are used in different countries, you don't get to just pick the one you personally prefer. When this block expires, please discuss it on the article Talk page, and get a consensus for which name or names will be used in the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent sockpuppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]