User talk:Breenhill

July 2013

Hello, I'm Kangaroopower. I noticed that you recently removed some content from SIL International, with this edit, 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, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kangaroopowah 20:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tow. I noticed that you recently removed some content from SIL International, with this edit, 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, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TOW talk 23:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breenhill, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Breenhill! 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! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Focus on the Family, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. - Mr X 23:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wendy Wright (activist) because it did not appear constructive. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DouglasCalvert. I noticed that you recently removed some content from SIL International 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! DouglasCalvert (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wendy Wright (activist) with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Wendy Wright (activist)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Andrewpmk | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at SIL International, you may be blocked from editing. Andrewpmk | Talk 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SIL International. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You will not get your way with the article by simply removing content. If you have an argument for why the material should be removed you must advance that argument on the discussion page of the article, then consensus of the discussion will determine whether it should be removed or not. If you simply keep removing it without discussion you may end up having your account blocked from editing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Wendy Wright (activist). Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wendy Wright (activist), you may be blocked from editing. APerson (talk!) 21:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Your edits to this article are very POV and very unproductive. You are only wasting time and hurting whatever POV you are trying to promote.Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring at Wendy Wright (activist) and SIL International. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Wendy Wright (activist)

With due respect, Breenhill, I realize that you are a somewhat experienced editor and have a passion for this topic. I, too, am dedicated to enforcing Wikipedia's neutrality. However, I believe that you mistaken in your reference to the referenced material on Dawkins; I did not see any attacks on her character, only her views, and not an undue amount so. We need to allow both sides, here, and users will decide for themselves. Given your edit history, despite your passion, I urge you to steer clear of making edits on this page again unless they are pre-discussed and achieve consensus at the talk page. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. Thank you! Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Wendy Wright (activist)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Andrewpmk | Talk 01:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Edit war at Institute for Creation Research

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Institute for Creation Research. 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. I'm letting you know about this because you appear to have been involved in a slow moving edit war on Wendy Wright (activist) for some time now. Please read over WP:BRD; when your edit gets reverted, it's time to take your concerns to the talk page and hash them out with other editors. The content you're adding about creationism now is seriously opposed to our neutral point of view policy. I'll discuss it with you on the talk page if you bring your concerns there. Please don't edit war over it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Intelligent Design

Might as well add ID to the bunch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Creationism 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've had more than three reverts of the same material, but different articles. That is grounds for blocking. I will refrain from blocking you if I see evidence of trying to gain consensus for your change on an article talk page.

As a point of interest, you might want to look at Project Steve, it's related to what you're trying to add. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to STOP EDIT WARRING

Now at William A. Dembski. As dave souza said, "book cover republished by DI not a RS, undue weight to a few uninformed views from 1998." Read WP:BRD. If you want to make a change that is challenged, use the talk page to gain consensus. Yes, it will be difficult for you as you seem to want to push fringe content into articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER tell me what to do. Ever. I know you love trolling around to make sure your ignorant, vitriolic agenda is maintained but stop spamming me with your nonsense. If you have a problem, use the talk page to sort it out. Do you understand?

Your recent editing history at William A. Dembski 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You're communicating on talk pages, which is good, but you're still edit warring anyway. You were warned. Multiple times. You've had well more than three reverts of substantially the same material in different articles. Now you're blocked for a week. When the block is lifted, WP:BRD would be good practice for you to follow, to be more collaborative with the community and build consensus without resorting to further disruptive activity. If you want to appeal this block, you may put the tag {{unblock|reason=your reason here}} below this message. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]