User talk:Kumkwat

Welcome!

Hello, Kumkwat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

In your recent edit of Dana Tyler and Phil Collins you chose to SHOUT in your comments, there is no cause for that. Seeing as there was no working link to this fact when I made the edit I can hardly be faulted to the edit. You added the reference after my edit. Still, you have not added the reference next to the "boyfriend" sentence, the reader should not be required to look through the external inks in case a claimed fact is referenced there. You need to add the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). to the line in question. I can't see any such reference in the Collins article at all. MrMarmite (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Eve Torres. Thank you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dana Tyler. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring to insert unsourced or insufficently sourced information into biographies of living persons. The number of times your additions have been reverted, by multiple experienced editors, should be a strong signal to you that such editing practices are unacceptable. Your claims that such reverts are vandalism will be rejected by other editors, and will not prevent suspension of your editing privileges if such editing continues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Dana Tyler. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. See WP:CONSENSUS and engage dialogue in the article's talk page. You do not solely determine relevance. There are at least two of us who do see it as relevant. Please also note this is the last L2 warn you will receive. Please be sure not to escalate these editing habits further. Srobak (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Phil Collins. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Swarm. I noticed that one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wookiee with this edit, appeared to be unconstructive, and I’ve reverted it. In the future, please use the sandbox for testing and be sure to provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Please feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia (or anything else) on my talk page. Swarm 20:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Dana Tyler. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off[edit]

Both PC and DT articles have discussions going on in the talk pages as to the material you keep posting. As per WP guidelines - WP:CONSENSUS will be followed once reached - not at your behest. You are welcome to participate in those discussions, and do so rationally. Any more nonsensical editing out of you and we will just have your account sanctioned. You have exhausted my patience with this issue. Srobak (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV'ed for failing to follow WP:CONSENSUS Srobak (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dana Tyler. 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. Srobak (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phil Collins. 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. Srobak (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User talk:Srobak were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Srobak, 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. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Phil Collins, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Srobak (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Dana Tyler, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. WP:CONSENSUS. Read it. Learn it. Understand it. Srobak (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Dana Tyler[edit]

I've reverted your change at Dana Tyler, and posted a request for comment on the issue. Rather than edit war your additions, please discuss the matter on the talk page. It seems like this relationship has been the focus of your editing for the last few weeks, I'd strongly advise you to continue working towards consensus on the talk pages.

Furthermore, referring to other editor's changes as "hate tactics" and "vandalism" is, well, ridiculous. [1] That doesn't strengthen your case any. If you want your changes to stand, you need to explain them on the talk pages and get other editors to agree with you. I've tried to help by putting the RFC on the Tyler page. Please chime in there. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages exist for a reason[edit]

I notice you've been involved in some pretty persistent edit warring at Phil Collins and Dana Tyler, recently. Please note that Wikipedia has a fairly robust dispute resolution process -- from a quick glance, it doesn't seem to me like you're trying to build a consensus to include the material you keep inserting. You're entirely welcome to join discussion on relevant talk pages, but I do have to ask you to stop attempting to insert the material via brute force. It's not going to work, and you're going to end up blocked from editing for a while if you keep at it. If you need help using talk pages, please see WP:TALK or WP:TALKPAGE.

It's not my intention to frighten you off or discourage you from seeking consensus, but I do want you to understand that I'm very serious about this warning: several of your fellow editors have repeatedly asked you to discuss this issue, and it seems like you're ignoring them. Please stop that. The best way forward is through discussion and dispute resolution. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Phil Collins, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The number of editors reverting your edits on PC and DT pages is substantial and illustrates WP:CONSENSUS. You will conduct yourself within the guidelines of that policy or you will not edit here. Choose now. Srobak (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Phil Collins. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, 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.
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 the 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 without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KNOCK IT OFF[edit]

Next one gets you ANI'ed and banned. Tired of your nonsense. You have completely exhausted my patience. Srobak (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mine, too. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]