User talk:Towns21

Towns21, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Towns21! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia -- thanks.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Michael Howard, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JRPG. I noticed that you recently removed some content from John Major without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JRPG (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Sutton, Surrey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. --Charles (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Malden. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Hi, you have been asked to stop edit warring and take any issues to Talk pages. Your edits are not helpful. Why do you insist on continuing? Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Railway services at stations

Hi, re these edits: please don't add excessive detail to the rail service information on articles about railway stations. This includes stopping patterns, which are more suitably described on the article about the line. Relevant guidelines include WP:NOTTIMETABLE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you are continuing to do this. If you feel that such information should be included, please start a thread at WT:RAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you re-adding this excessive detail instead of discussing, per WP:BRD? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your silence implies that you refuse to discuss. Accordingly:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now started a discussion at WT:RAIL#Services from individual stations to which you are welcome to contribute. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. I note that you have not participated in the discussion at WT:RAIL#Services from individual stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Why do you refuse to discuss these matters? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refuse to discuss this? You are continuing to add inappropriate information to Leatherhead railway station and other articles; as I have explained before, Wikipedia is not a railway timetable and nor is it a travel guide. I've informed WikiProject UK Railways. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dorking shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. --Charles (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. There have been no responses whatsoever from you, other than a continued wilful disregard for requests not to add the unnecessary (and unsourced) information. Please explain just how they satisfy WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTTIMETABLE. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wimbledon station. Charles (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]