User talk:Jkress613

Do not remove warnings

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Erik 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i did not know, i am a member to alright,

thank you

Vandalizing my user page

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. --Erik 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized my user page, not my user talk page. Please use my user talk page, not my user page, for discussion. See your first and second vandalisms. What you've written on my user talk page has been moved to the bottom in its own section and appropriately signed, as you did not leave a signature. To leave a signature, use four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. --Erik 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i thought all of them was user talk, sorry again

Three-revert rule

Please read the official Three-revert rule policy. You have been reported in violation of this policy, as you were warned before you reverted a fourth time. --Erik 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

enough alright i am also a member you need to stop, i did not do anything alright, what happend to the site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkress613 (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 21, 2006 (UTC)

Please review the link that I provided above. You have reverted changes made to Star Trek XI nine times, which is in violation of the policy. --Erik 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of you go and bother some one else

The edits that I removed from Star Trek XI were two misspellings and one speculation. Tulane97 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Wildthing61476 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek XI

I was wondering if we could talk this out. A large number of editors, myself included, have reverted the changes that you have attempted to make to the film article. You persist on re-adding the changes in spite of the different editors that have gotten involved in this so-called edit warring. I know that you have expressed the citation for your information, but it has been deemed unverifiable by a couple of other editors. The majority have spoken. Why not leave your intended changes out of the article? --Erik 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just give us some proof of this from a verifiable source. Wildthing61476 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Star Trek XI. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Extraordinary Machine 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why am i blocked i didnt even do anything any more, theres no reason to block me,

Please read Wikipedia's policy of the three-revert rule. You were in violation of this rule, and thus you were reported to the administrators. You can see the report here. In the future, please discuss information you want to contribute to an article on the respective article's talk page. --Erik 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. The Haunted Angel 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Billtheking 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Windows XP

Your recent edit to Windows XP (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAST WARNING

Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you WILL be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Billtheking 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to WJZ-TV, you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not vandalism. I am giving the info of the former slogans. In case people are wondering what they were. I been here for a while and I know what I am doing.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to WJZ-TV, you will be blocked from editing. You have been warned enough as an IP and as a user about vandalism, so you are only getting two warnings, because you should know better. If you vandalize the WJZ-TV page or any other page, you will be blocked. NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you were warned. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Dreadstar † 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Connor Chronicles Ratings

The numbers I put in are the CORRECT ones. Look them up if you have to, but I know they're correct. Some idiot has been inflating the numbers for unknown reasons, which is why I replaced those ones with the real numbers. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles‎, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Unfortunately IMDB is not a reliable source, because like wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. Annie D (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Sandpit‎, you will be blocked from editing. Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 days as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Kingturtle (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]