User talk:Trayvon1

Welcome!

Hello, Trayvon1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Hi Trayvon1! 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! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chick-fil-A 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 would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! - Mr X 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grant[edit]

Trayvon - you have made several edits for basketball figures and each time have told people to take their concerns to the Talk page for the article. I started a Talk page conversation on this article and you have been reverting edits without engaging in that discussion. I am going to revert your edits to this article and ask that you follow your own advice and engage in the discussion before rushing to get this stuff added. Right now, I feel like this section is not all that encyclopedic or NPOV and I want to be sure that we are including information that needs to be included in this form - blog and sports op/ed pieces don't scream out to me that "the league" has this opinion of Grant and frankly some of the picks listed (eg Thompson) aren't seen as poor picks today in 2013. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm happy to discuss on the talk page for Chris Grant.Trayvon1 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Christie[edit]

Greetings. Your input is requested for a discussion regarding the Fort Lee Lane Closure at Talk:Chris Christie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Chris Paul. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Chris Paul. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —Bagumba (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Thanks for the edit summary. If you will remember to always use an edit summary, you can avoid these problems. Your first deletion looked like vandalism. When reverted, you should have followed WP:BRD by starting a discussion on the talk page. Since I can see your point, I'm going to let it slide this time, but in the future always use edit summaries, and follow BRD if reverted. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan[edit]

If you have something to say about the Reagan article you should bring it up on the Reagan talk page instead of reverting away at material. Otherwise you risk edit warring and more blocking Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "tweak" if you are removing substantial amounts of referenced content in a lede.[edit]

Editing controversial articles such as Bill Clinton can be difficult, but always state exactly what you have done and not call an edit a minor change or "tweak" when removing referenced material from the lede. Please discuss this on the talk page as it has now been objected to. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]