User talk:Bearrocksmoon

Let me remind you, blog sites are not considered to be a reliable source. Please read WP:RS to see what qualifies as such. Sites such as [www.rantrave.com] and [www.enscriber.com] are not reliable. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

Hi there. Some of your recent edits to the article Swoopo introduced questionable sources. Please take a moment to read over pagse on use of sources on Wikipedia including WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Other good pages include WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Article development. If you have questions feel free to add the template {{helpme}} on this talk page. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Swoopo. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying other users' comments[edit]

Do not modify other users' comments, as you did here: [1]. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Swoopo. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. GlassCobra 14:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bearrocksmoon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

opposing users entering information that is untrue

Decline reason:

I've also extended your block as you are quite clearly evading it. Your block now expires in 72 hours. If you continue to evade your block, you will likely be blocked indefinitely. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Further commentary requested at AfD[edit]

Hello! Could you please expand your commentary here[2] so that others may better understand your contribution to the discussion and perhaps be assisted with theirs? Thanks! Strikerforce (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]