User talk:Oystergannet

September 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to International Rugby Board. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Greenman (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Dan Carter. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to International Rugby Board, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Greenman (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cant help it that people think referenced npov are unbalanced. seems there is no notable npov referenced material to say hes as excellent as he was shocking in this instance. So unbalanced is not a rational reasoning to change my entry

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Simon Dallow. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. XLerate (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. gadfium 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 Club

The content of the 27 Club article is as it is after a great deal of discussion and consensus on the talk page. If you have additional point to add, that have not already been covered at some length, then please first read the discussion on the talk page, and contribute to it. Please do not edit against this consensus. Thanks.

SBW vandalism

Please stop adding sectarian information that is neither notable nor mentioned in the reference. If you continue your stubborn behaviour you may be blocked.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]