User talk:Andcarr

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Andcarr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Ross (businessman). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. The Original Bob (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Ross (businessman), you may be blocked from editing. The Original Bob (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was right, you were wrong, has wiki become totalitarian?

David Ross

I strongly suggest you refrain from disruptively editing this article or you will be blocked again - you do NOT own this article and you do not get the final say on what goes in it, I am a much more experienced editor than you and you seem to ONLY edit this article. Bleaney (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Gosh I am so scared!

January 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not make unfounded accusations. It appears I am accurate, once again!!!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Following your use of an IP address to continue the edit war, I have extended your block for 48 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You have blocked the wrong person, that is my IP address. (Saskia2309 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Given Saskia's comment, I have unblocked you. I apologise for my confusion and consequent extension of your block. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, I do know Saskia and appreciate the fact that she cleared things up. However it is clear that even when I make a fully referenced edit to this article it is removed almost straight away by somebody, and if I try to revert it I am banned. So I will retire from the battle for a while as I am obviously upsetting a lot of people. It will be a sad day if Wikipedia articles become scrubbed, sanitised profiles of living individuals. I think the public deserve to know that some individuals are not the Angels their PR company portray. (Andcarr (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Will editing disputes mean the end for Wikipedia?

The following reference is an article from SBS which explains why editors are leaving Wikipedia. Some of the administrators that are so keen on blocking my comments should give it a read.(Andcarr (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

That article has been discussed pretty extensively in its original form at Slate. You should read that and the comments section which is attached to it. Then you'll realise just how crass your note above actually is: the article is flawed in many respects and was written by someone who was involved in a big, high-profile dispute here. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Sitush is upset, so much so that he has completely rewritten the article on David Ross showing him in a much more favourable light. This kind of action means Wikipedia is losing its value as an information source. This makes editing pointless so I am leaving Wikipedia. Enjoy yourselves.(Andcarr (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC))