User talk:AccuracyObsessed

Welcome![edit]

Hello, AccuracyObsessed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

AccuracyObsessed (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am removing the block template as you are not actually blocked; the notice was placed here by a prankster. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sheri Fink, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sheri Fink 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. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sheri Fink, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop removing information that is documented and cited. Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC) AccuracyObsessed, please be respectful and discuss further changes on the talk page. Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding continues to vandalize the page by removing documented and cited information. The discussion is about the topic Sheri Fink. Thank you. —Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding continues to vandalize the page by removing documented and cited information. The discussion is about the topic Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. Thank you. —Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premature move of Anna Pou Case[edit]

Hello AccuracyObsessed. You must not unilaterally perform a move which is the subject of a current move discussion. Please wait for the discussion to be properly closed by an uninvolved person. I have reverted the move. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston. It was a reversion during the discussion to the original, longtime name (someone else had unilaterally moved it).AccuracyObsessed (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting twice[edit]

Now it really does look like voting twice. You should unbold the word support in your second comment and put the bolded word Comment at the beginning of your comment to remove this impression.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I read in the rules on controversial moves that we should advocate for our positions and provide relevant info, but I didn't quite know how to format the additional material. Thanks again.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding vandalism after final warning/removing content without discussing on talk page. The thread is AccuracyObsessed on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina.The discussion is about the topic Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. Thank you. —Schwartzenberg (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]