User talk:Markmark12

July 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Diablo (video game). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Stephanie Rice. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Stephanie Rice. StaticGull Talk 13:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human sexuality

Hi there. You should give a reason in your edit summary for removing large chunks of text. Otherwise, people will assume you're editing maliciously.-Wafulz (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Human Sexuality, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should also watch out for the three-revert rule. You're already at the limit.-Wafulz (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being passive aggressive, I'm trying to help. Two other editors have reverted you and you're past the three revert limit. You should use the talk page or you'll be listed for a short block.-Wafulz (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling after final warning

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Festival

Hi. Please don't remove cited content without discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2009 (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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Article (publishing), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR on Motion Picture Production Code

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nakon 04:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phobia

Hello. Regarding this edit, please note that one's never having heard of something is not a valid reason for removing it. I've restored the links, which led to sourced articles. If you disagree with my reasoning, please open a discussion at Talk:Phobia. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

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 Ron Paul, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you appear to be automatically reverting the edits of someone you disagree with - especially when it means doing something senseless like restoring the code for a deleted photo - without edit summaries, it's hard not see those edits as motivated by spite. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Feminism 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. 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. Cailil ^talk 21:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Markmark12. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Markmark12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]