User talk:OttoKretschmer2021

July 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Robert E. Clark II, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Robert E. Clark II, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Robert E. Clark II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SkyWarrior 03:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did at Robert E. Clark II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SkyWarrior 04:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OttoKretschmer2021, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi OttoKretschmer2021! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm Nubzor. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robert E. Clark II without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Nubzor (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Robert E. Clark II, you may be blocked from editing. Nubzor (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clark is an abject failure. Perfectly (and expertly) capable of following orders, which makes him a exemplary product of military training, capable of executing commands from his superiors without question. He is not capable of either an original or creative thought. Without a superior, Clark is an empty vessel wandering the sea. OttoKretschmer2021 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Nubzor. Nubzor (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clark is an abject failure. Perfectly (and expertly) capable of following orders, which makes him a exemplary product of military training, capable of executing commands from his superiors without question. He is not capable of either an original or creative thought. Without a superior, Clark is an empty vessel wandering the sea. OttoKretschmer2021 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at User:Nubzor. Nubzor (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clark is an abject failure. Perfectly (and expertly) capable of following orders, which makes him a exemplary product of military training, capable of executing commands from his superiors without question. He is not capable of either an original or creative thought. Without a superior, Clark is an empty vessel wandering the sea. OttoKretschmer2021 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clark is an abject failure. Perfectly (and expertly) capable of following orders, which makes him a exemplary product of military training, capable of executing commands from his superiors without question. He is not capable of either an original or creative thought. Without a superior, Clark is an empty vessel wandering the sea. OttoKretschmer2021 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]