User talk:Ric5575

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Badger, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. 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 "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Badger was changed by Ric5575 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95043 on 2011-12-10T16:27:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to List of museums in Rome, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Kangaroopowah 20:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of museums in Rome with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to History of Athens, 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. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to The Devil Inside (film), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Tgeairn (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Napoleon. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Yopie (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note for report filed at 3RR Noticeboard

Please see: User:Ric5575 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Napoleon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk

Hi. I just received your message on my talkpage. I am sorry that it came to this. I am surprised that even though I made the report at WP:3RRN which got you blocked, your recent message on my talkpage is a very nice and civil one. Frankly, I would not have expected anyone to be so nice to someone who reported them for edit-warring. On retrospect I regret that I didn't try to talk to you before I filed the report but I saw the 3RR warning on your talk and since you continued reverting I assumed that it would be difficult to communicate further. Perhaps I should have given it a try. Take care and if you need any assistance in the future please let me know. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was wrong. I just saw that you started edit-warring again after I gave you a courtesy notice about a report which I submitted at the 3RR noticeboard concerning your actions. This was not a very good idea at all. Edit-warring while an edit-warring report is pending about you on the 3RR noticeboard is behaviour which is a bit difficult to understand. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit war rather than discussing your changes. A good general rule to follow is WP:BRD: Make an edit, if someone reverts you make one revert, with an edit summary, then discuss it on the article talk page. I've put a note on the Rome talk page here. I encourage you to discuss your changes there.

It is also a good idea to discuss major changes (such as adding a section about the Vatican to the article on Rome like this one) in advance of making them. If you don't discuss what you are doing, you may get reverted. If you haven't been clear about what you are doing, it may not go well for you. Looking at the warnings on this page, it may be a good idea to make some changes in your approach. if you need any help, please contact me on my talk page. Sunray (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Strawberries

Hallo Ric

thanks for the strawberries, I appreciated them a lot! About Rome and Vatican, I will answer on the discussion Page. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 again

Your recent editing history at Napoleon shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please don't start this up again. Next time you revert there will be another report like the other one when you got blocked. However this time it will be a longer block. Hopefully you will stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making edits to Napoleon that it is obvious that other editors do not agree with. Instead, please participate meaningfully in the discussions on Talk:Napoleon and make an effort to resolve your disagreements with other editors. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]