User talk:Robertj290

December 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rebecca De Mornay, 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. Alexf^(talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rebecca De Mornay. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alexf^(talk) 16:23, 24 December 2010 (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 ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edit warring again

You have been blocked for edit-warring before, but once again you appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rebecca De Mornay. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Rebecca De Mornay. 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.

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. --v/r, T P 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for edit warring before, and should have learned that it is not the way to achieve anything. The material you want included has been removed by two different editors. If you think it would improve the article, do not simply re-insert it, but make a proposal on the article talk page and try to achieve WP:Consensus. Your proposal will need to:

Provide references to reliable, published sources for what you want to add, to comply with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Private emails are not enough.
Explain why material about her step-brothers is relevant to an article about Ms De Mornay and her career. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site.

JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at administrators' noticeboard

I have requested a review of this block at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for block review. If you wish to make any contribution to that discussion, you may add it below here and I will copy it across. JohnCD (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]