User talk:Debfdaumas

December 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Santa Maria Madalena, Rio de Janeiro, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Santa Maria Madalena, Rio de Janeiro.

Your edit removed article content from a presentable, if not very comprehensive page (including removing references) and replaced it with text which is not up to the standard required by Wikipedia. You are not "creating" the page; the page already exists and you are welcome to edit it in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read the following links and edit in compliance with the instructions contained therein. Thank you.

In the meantime, welcome to Wikipedia we hope you will enjoy contributing constructively. Eagleash (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Despite the above, you have continued to disrupt the page. You are now edit warring which you must not do. In response to your message at my talk page, if you create multiple accounts and use them to disrupt the encyclopedia you will be blocked for sockpuppetry. If you, as you indicate you will, edit as you want to, no matter what, you will be blocked as disruptive or not useful and if you tell an experienced administrator of the encyclopedia that they are 'in your way' they may not feel well-disposed towards you.

The page is in mainspace; it has been accepted into the encyclopedia and is on view to the public. It may not be a very good page but there is no reason to delete it. If you wish to improve it then edit the existing content but do not delete same and replace it with sub-standard text which does not comply with policies. Your personal knowledge counts for nothing on Wikipedia and facts must be corroborated by reliable sources (see above). See also WP:OWN. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you.

It is noted you have again blanked the page and replaced it with less than useful content. It has been reverted...that is at least four editors who have restored the page so the consensus is against you. If you blank it again it will definitely be seen as disruptive and may lead to the loss of editing privileges. Eagleash (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2017

Hello, I'm Klaun. I noticed that you recently removed content from Santa Maria Madalena, Rio de Janeiro 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 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. —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to recent changes you've made to The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, the content you've added seems to be expressing an opinion about the article without clearly sourcing that opinion. There is not consensus on your additions, as evidenced by reversions... if you'd like to see changes to the article, perhaps you should take it to the Talk page. Klaun (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. Klaun (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Santa Maria Madalena, Rio de Janeiro, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Yet again you have vandalised the page. Do you seriously think that this version of the page, incorrectly formatted, containing grammatical errors and multiple reference errors is better than this pre-existing version? If you cannot see that this is disrupting the encyclopedia then the conclusion must be drawn that you are WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia but merely to disrupt it, whether deliberately or through lack of the necessary skills. The page will undoubtedly be changed back by another editor (four editors have removed your sub-standard work to date) and when it is do not reinstate your edits or you will almost certainly be reported and blocked from editing. You clearly have taken no notice of the various messages left at this page and viewing your efforts as disruptive is therefore inevitable. Eagleash (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Klaun (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report can be found here. I have proposed in the report that your account be blocked for edit warring. There may still be time for you to respond and agree to follow our policies. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked you need to explicitly repudiate this attitude and understand how consensus works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]