User talk:BWCBENCERVS

Citing sources

Sources must be cited when the content is added to the article. If it is not cited at the time of addtion, it is unsourced. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Your recent editing history at James Eagan Holmes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly adding controversial unsourced material to the Holmes article. Even without the edit-warring, continuing this behavior may lead to a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are blocked for edit-warring and persistence in tampering with talk page comments. Contrary to your stated belief, your comments (and the comments of others) are not yours to delete at will. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He should have been advised to request oversight of any unsourced defamatory material at OTRS. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gag order

If there is a gag order and you have violated it, please email me immediately using Wikipedia email or fredbaud at fairpoint.net User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I am changing the basis for your block rather than removing it. You added a great deal of defamatory information that had to be suppressed. The fact that others were repeatedly removing it was notice to you that there was a problem. Only information that is published in a reliable source can be added, or discussed, with respect to a living person. If, when you return to editing, you continue to edit this article, or its talk page in the way you have, making assertions of fact without citing a good reference, and no, court documents are not sufficient, they are primary sources, you may be blocked indefinitely. My advice, given your track record, is to edit in other areas. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making legal threats is also an issue, but you seem to have been at wit's end. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of talk page access

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]