User talk:Word Style

October 2013

Hello, I'm Kolega2357. An edit that you recently made to Chris Hicks (record executive) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the 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! Kolega2357 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Mr Hicks maybe you should leave it to other to edit the article. People that are too close to the subject can have problem to stay neutral enough. Add your comments to the talk page at Talk:Chris Hicks (record executive) and other users will implement it to the article if the changes is good and neutral and if they can be backed up with independent neutral sources. -- Tegel (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Hicks (record executive). Your edits would appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh | Buzzard| — 17:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Chris Hicks

Copy 'n' pasted from my Talk

I am not a vandal. Based on the posted definitions, neither are my edits. Chris Hicks does not work at Def Jam. He did not enter the record (music) business at the stated time. This is truly a plea to have both factual and concise information posted to said person's page. What then, is the process to have a page protected to reflect the accurate information (based on all of my past revisions...which is simply removing all of the fluff and misinformation.

Word Style (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Word Style[reply]

— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh | Buzzard| — 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chris Hicks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh | Buzzard| — 17:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm Frosty. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chris Hicks (record executive) with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Frosty ☃ 00:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]