Suppose.

Your recent editing history at Crouton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of unsolved problems in mathematics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Thomas.W (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thomas.W (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll forgive me, I hope, if I don’t take particularly seriously the threats of someone who considers simple responses to talk pages as vandalism. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Systematically copy-pasting totally undeserved warnings on the user talk pages of other users (as you do every time you are being warned by someone, not only by me) is vandalism. Your behaviour clearly shows that you seem to believe that you are above the rules, but FYI you're not. Thomas.W (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your notion that only one person of two engaged in an edit war is allowed to warn the other, and the other can only commit vandalism, is rather shortsighted. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit war, this is you breaking the rules. Thomas.W (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several, actually, and if you continue this disruptive behavior, you'll find yourself blocked pretty soon. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep saying. Several rules that you can name, or imaginary ones? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that other editors have asked you to stop removing these templates and I came here after seeing a report at WP:AIV that you had continued to do so. However there have been no further removals after the last warning noted above - thank you for stopping these removals, which would indeed be disruptive if you continued to do so. A block would not be warranted seeing as you have stopped, but please note that if there are further instances I will impose a block without further warning. Hopefully however this won't be necessary. Of course if tyou have imnproved the referencing of an article, or gained consensus on the talk page that the tag is not needed, it can be removed safely. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why would you impose a block? ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To protect the encyclopaedia from further disruption. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So one cannot improve the encyclopedia if anyone at all objects to it, without being blocked? ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) Your three reverts to Mate (beverage) here, here and here in under 24 hours indicate you are edit warring, and attempting to justify this because 3 is less than 4 and gets you "off the hook" for violating the three revert rule probably won't go down well. For what it's worth, I actually agree with your basic principle here, and I don't like refimprove tags myself, but the way you resolve a dispute on the tag is to discuss it, not edit war over it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate talk page stalking, but unless you’re threatening to block me for inspecific reasons, your words are rather irrelevant to me in this particular section at this particular time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you were doing was not improving the encyclopaedia and was being objected to by numerous people, on numerous occasions. (By the way, there's no need to copy this discussion to my talk page as well. I'm watching this page and will reply here.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you don’t care if I do it as long as no one objects? ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said above is that if you remove refimprove tags again without either improving referencing or gaining consensus to do so, I will block you. Other people's objections have already been made and no further objections from others will be required to trigger a block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So someone can add a template to a page without any consensus, but I can’t remove one without you blocking me? ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. If of course I found someone maliciously or playfully slapping on templates which were unwarranted, and they continued to do so after a series of warnings, they'd be liable to be blocked too. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not give legal advice on Reference Desks: [1]. Not only is this inappropriate, but the advice you gave was clearly factually incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent disruptive editing. 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.  Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Green Party (United States) logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Unices. Since you had some involvement with the List of Unices redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Funtoo logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to wikipedia, where (despite the minority objectors) YOU CAN make appreciated contributions.126.3.11.120 (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal editable/Images/Switzerland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal editable has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was directed to your talk page by the participants list on WikiProject Linux. I've started a discussion whether we can keep it running, or mark it as inactive.– Abuluntu ( talk 06:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]