User talk:Eagleman123

September 2017

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Strathaven RFC— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Strathaven RFC. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Strathaven RFC was changed by Eagleman123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.919498 on 2017-09-16T16:23:29 00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Strathaven RFC, you may be blocked from editing. LakesideMiners (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Strathaven RFC. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strathaven RFC. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eagleman123 reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: ). Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Strathaven RFC

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)