User talk:Edwinramos2

Welcome

Hello, Edwinramos2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Sudo Ghost 06:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

First Mistakes

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to New Testament Christian Churches of America, 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to New Testament Christian Churches of America. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at New Testament Christian Churches of America. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at New Testament Christian Churches of America, you may be blocked from editing. Scopecreep (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at New Testament Christian Churches of America, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Scopecreep (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SineBot. Please sign your posts on talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fans

In response to your feedback

Yes indeed, it is fun :) welcome!

Ciphers (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! --ER 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me. --ER 22:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and Accusations

I have mentioned you here. B^e——C_ritical 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don't mind a little bit of publicity, only had this account for three days now, already being sent in front of the ruling regime. --ER 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at New Testament Christian Churches of America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Testament Christian Churches of America. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (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).

Edwinramos2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this is dumb, lol is this a time out corner and punishment for stating my case clear and precise on the talk page. I believe that this is a case of bullying by "older Editors" that are use to getting their way and want to bully the new kid on the block. My edits are not disruptive, they are forward moving, suggesting new heading is not, disruptive editing. This was between two Editors, don't see no action against other editor. This Wiki document is not owned by any USER or administrator. Which leads me to my last reason, I believe administrator that have issued, this block is being bias on this case, not taking into account talk page in question, which will reveal, that reversion was being conducted by both editors, but I get the boot, because am the new kid, very bad judgment in the decision of this "block".

Decline reason:

First, do not use "lol" in an unblock request, it demonstrates a lack of sincerity. Second, your unblock request needs to focus on your behavior and how you plan to change that behavior. Tiderolls 23:23, 26 March 2012 (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.

THis is what terrorism looks like in the virtual editing world - --ER 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That smart comment about my lol, TideRolls, can come across in a bad manner.

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.--ER 00:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't pretend that the problem is the admin, ER. If you wish to continue your editing career, you should maybe listen. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]