User talk:Caskett2015

April 2015

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Stana Katic without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Stana Katic, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stana Katic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Stana Katic. She's married. Deal with it please. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Stana Katic. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: I think "Caskett" is a portmanteau of Castle and Beckett, the two main characters of the show Katic stars in and who are married to each other. So it looks like this editor's goal is to deny reality in favor of fiction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the meaning of "Caskett" — obviously. Regarding the editor's goal, it's possible Caskett2015 is convinced that reports of Stana Katic's wedding are based in unsubstantiated rumour and must therefore be aggressively removed per the BLP policy. However, this claim has shown up in numerous presumably reliable sources (as anyone can see by doing a web search for something like "stana katic married"), so IMO it's entitled to a reasonable amount of credence. If Caskett2015 is convinced the wedding claim is inadequately sourced, he/she should have explained his/her objection in edit summaries, and he/she should bring up the matter at Talk:Stana Katic (once his/her 3RR block runs out), rather than just repeatedly deleting the material without explanation and leaving it for the rest of us to guess that he/she is claiming the BLP exemption to the general rule against edit warring or 3RR (see WP:3RRBLP). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Winner 42. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Castle episodes, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]