User talk:TheTimeTraveler2025

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Brookhaven, Georgia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brookhaven, Georgia with this edit, 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Brookhaven, Georgia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tiptoety ^talk 08:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Brookhaven, Georgia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheTimeTraveler2025. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Wikipedia is "evidence"

Your discussion here is a bit odd. Wikipedia articles are not and cannot be left in a certain state in order to be used as "evidence". Since the history of the article is tracked, including who edited it, anyone can go back in time to view previous versions. You should beware that your statements have ventured slightly into no legal threats territory, as per the recent WP:ANI report. If articles do cause issues, they need to be repaired - not kept in their current state (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats and chilling effect

Re your comments on User talk:Jim1138's talk page (permanent link). While you are not issuing direct legal threats, you did imply that Wikipedia and/or its editors are infringing on the rights of a group or individual, and thus you are inflicting a chilling effect on other editors; consequently, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Note that indefinite does not mean infinite, and you can be unblocked quite easily if you agree not to lecture or otherwise attempt to intimidate other editors by using legalese and other assumptions of bad faith. If you want to be unblocked, please do so by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock notice

Hello TheTimeTraveller2025; I am the administrator that blocked you earlier today (see the notice right above). Another administrator approached me to suggest a block might not have been the best course of action in the context, and upon further review I agree with his take on the situation. You can read our small conversation here.

Therefore, I decided to lift the block. Keep in mind the following : :

It is unlikely anyone here on Wikipedia is deliberately trying to infringe on your rights, please assume good faith;
Edit warring is not productive, and you did the right thing by attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page and with other editors (even though your attempt to do so resulted in a block);
The suggestion that Wikipedia editors' actions could have legal implications will not be tolerated.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best of luck and happy editing. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]