User talk:Codylawyer

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. Bertilvidet 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not return images to the article, evem if commented out, if they are violations of WIkipedia's fair use policy. Thank you. -- Avi 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Bertilvidet 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Vints 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by vandalism. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Codylawyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

{{{1}}}

Decline reason:

User was clearly in violation of WP:3RR, block will run out shortly anyway. ---- Nataly a 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm just trying to keep factual info on the page. Vints and Bertilvidet are removing factual info and putting in false info.

Hello! Really nice to see another comment than "rv" from you. Actually the page in question has talk page. If you seriously think that all the content that you continously remove is false, it would be a good idea to forward your arguments when your block is over. Bertilvidet 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Iraq War

I'd like to give you the suggestion I gave to CJK a short while ago:

I'd like to suggest making less sweeping changes to the Iran-Iraq War article. Make some of your more minor changes, like shifting a paragraph or moving a photo, and if someone reverts then discuss it and reach a compromise. After a compromise has been achieved as to the structure of the article, then start dealing with disputed content case by case. If you'd prefer to deal with the disputed content first, that'd work fine too, but please do it step by step. When you make sweeping changes people tend to revert them without giving them a second glance because the topic is so controversial. I generally agree that the article is written from an anti-American point of view, but you'd have better success improving the article's neutrality if it's done a little bit at a time.

TomTheHand 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Iran-Iraq War. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bertilvidet 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Semi-protected Article Tags

Do not remove semi-protected article tags from articles as you did with Iran-Iraq War. To do so is an act of vandalism and can lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time. You may consider this message a third-level warning. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh..., what does third-level warning mean? Codylawyer 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you not will get further warnings before being blocked for vandalism. Bertilvidet 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Codylawyer 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I wish you happy - and safe - editting. Bertilvidet 18:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]