User talk:Scott Bell-Moss

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, Scott Bell-Moss, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! FunksBrother (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of section headings

Please do not capitalise all words in sections headings. Wikipedia manual of style clearly sets the standard for such headings which is that only the first word should be capitalised unless other words are proper names. Please do not change any more headings. Thank you Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Woolworths Group. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Eagleash (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Woolworths Group, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above comments -- you have made a number of edits, which all seem to be well-intended ("good faith" in WPspeak), but which go against WP styling ("sentence case for headings"), or in another case make links go to the wrong place. At British Home Stores you changed this link: [[Administration (law)|Administration]]; this makes "administration" link to the relevant article, instead of a general disambiguation page ("DAB" in WPspeak). Please be more careful before changing things you have not understood fully. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Maplin (retailer), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. ... richi (hello) 20:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse

Hi Scott, if you're having trouble editing, or have questions, check out the Teahouse which is a good place for new or inexperienced users to find help. I hope that's of use. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Scott Bell-Moss, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Having said that, you are now edit warring on Toys "R" Us. Stop editing the article now and discuss (either here or on Talk:Toys "R" Us about what you want to achieve, otherwise you may need to be temporarily blocked from editing to prevent disruption and frustration from other editors who are trying to work on the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: This editor just won't stop. I've only reverted them twice in the last two days, but they keep on adding the same unsourced material. Scr★pIron^IV 23:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Toys "R" Us, you may be blocked from editing. Scr★pIron^IV 22:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Toys "R" Us. Please read Talk:Toys "R" Us#"punctuation_mistakes" and date formats, and respond there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Toys "R" Us. Scr★pIron^IV 11:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Toys "R" Us 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Scr★pIron^IV 11:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scott Bell-Moss. You have new messages at Talk:Toys "R" Us.
Message added 12:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—JJ B^e ^rs 12:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Toys "R" Us 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. —JJ B^e ^rs 13:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Wilko (retailer). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:10, 3 April 2018 (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:Scott_Bell-Moss reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: ). Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you this would happen. You didn't communicate with us, so you got blocked, then you evaded the block to create a new account and carry on like nothing had happened ..... now you're really blocked. You've only got yourself to blame. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]