Jt14905

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Susan Roesgen, you will be blocked from editing. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your comment from Talk:Susan Roesgen. It consisted of a paragraph of accusations with "I disagree with the edit" tacked on at the end. If you wish to use the talk page, leave out the accusations and explain your disagreements. Gamaliel (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With your latest edit to Susan Roesgen, you have violated the three revert rule that I warned you about earlier today. Please revert your edit so you are no longer in violation of this rule. If you do not do this, then your violation will be reported and may result in a temporary block that will prevent you from editing with this account. This rule is in place to insure that people use the talk page to settle editing disputes instead of endlessly reverting as you are doing now. Gamaliel (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A third user has reverted your edits. I urge you not to continue this edit war and to use the talk page as we've all been asking. Gamaliel (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Susan Roesgen. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gamaliel (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a sock puppet. That is a fact, not a personal attack. I'm sorry that fact does not shed a more favorable light on you.Jt14905 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer to question

If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, you can report the situation to WP:SPI. However, I can pretty much guarantee you that they are not socks of each other. Filing a report like that with no evidence is likely to land you in trouble; if the "evidence" on the talk page is all you have, I certainly caution you not to do it.

I have removed the thread on the article talk page, that's not what article talk pages are for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Happysomeone (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Susan Roesgen. 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. 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. NJA (t/c) 08:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Susan Roesgen, you will be blocked from editing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First edit after your block to remove the same content, this is asking for a longer block. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Susan Roesgen, you will be blocked from editing. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Aside from deleting cited text, you are also marking edits that are not vandalism as such. You're exhibiting persistent disruptive behaviour, and it really must stop. There are multiple ways to seek assistance while in dispute, but edit warring is not one of them. If talk page discussion doesn't create a consensus, then please consider the step-by-step guidance offered in the guideline found at WP:DR. As noted above, this is your last warning about removal of cited content and edit warring, thus any further similar actions will result in a lengthy block, which I'd prefer not to happen. NJA (t/c) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

I've gone ahead and started another report on your edit-warring at WP:AN/EW. Please note that you can be blocked not only for violating WP:3RR, but for repeatedly using reverts to try to settle disputes. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You were given some leniency when you were last reported for edit-warring, yet you've continued to edit-war. Don't expect any such leniency again. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.4.72.225. Thank you.