User talk:Anoopandshaq

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erik Karlsson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Freshfighter9^talk 01:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what freshfighter is talking about?

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 Chris Pronger. Thank you. Reso lute 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The references are very legitimate![reply]

No, a blog reference like that is not legitimate for Wikipedia's purposes. Especially as it pertains to a biography of a living person. Reso lute 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of ice hockey players of black African descent, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. See the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia constructively. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Freshfighter9^talk 18:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ryan Whitney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ccwaters (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC) What did I do. I had all the references for all the information. Everything is true.[reply]

"boner"?? ccwaters (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I give you that. i meant bone.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Clarke Wilm, you will be blocked from editing. Information about a hockey player's jock strap, whether it is sourced or not, is most definitely not regarded as noteworthy, and will continue to be reverted. Freshfighter9^talk 21:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On conflicts with other editors

Please read and consider WP:BRD. Bold changes are fine, but when reverted, the proper next step is to discuss a change on the article talk page. I would say especially so when your proposed change is reverted by multipe editors, as on Patrick Kane. Also, and incidentally, if you signed your user and talk page comments using ~~~~, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Reso lute 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patrick Kane. 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. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please refrain from adding this made up (or extremely trivial) player to the list. he was never on the roster, and there is no evidence of him existing. provide proof or leave it be. Львівське (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 55 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Should you continue with your "misspellings" and poorly sourced comment when the block expires, your next sanction is likely to be indefinte. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Patrick Kane, consensus and playoff beards

First, no, your phrasing is not cited. The only part of your statement that is supported by the citation is that Kane is growing a "playoff mullet". That said, this is also trivia and your addition has been reverted by several editors. Please read and consider WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Right now, consensus is against you, and if you continue to revert against it back to your preferred version, you will be blocked again. You have already been blocked once for edit warring on this very article, and given you have returned from that block to resume warring, consider this a warning that I will block you again, for a longer period of time, if you continue to battle over this. If you really believe this addition has value, take it to Talk:Patrick Kane and try to gain consensus for the addition. Do not continue edit warring. Reso lute 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruptive editing

Obviously the block taught you nothing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ryan Whitney, you will again be blocked from editing. It also appears that you may also now be using the account Duffdachinaman for your disruptive editing. You are on thin ice, tread carefully. Freshfighter9^talk 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for For resuming behavior that led to the previous block right after it expired.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]