User talk:Calcoform

March 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany‎, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Donottroll (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany 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 article's 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. Dr. K. 21:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, I'm Mezigue. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edits to Harry's Place seemed less than neutral so they have been removed for now. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on the article's talk page. Thank you. Mezigue (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You know full well that blogs are not reliable sources, yet you insert minor blogs as sources to promote your agenda, which you don't even attempt to hide. Never mind, your conspiratorial ranting on the talk pages and in your edit notes will be evidence enough to the admins that you shouldn't be within ten million miles of a controversial topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.99.144 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.99.144 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of reading materials you might find helpful:

And a word of personal advice: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Kleuske (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for treating Wikipedia as a battlefield and edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this time to read the links Kleuske has added above. Repeating the same behavior when you are unblocked will only lead to longer reblocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-authoritarian (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your ranting and tendentious editing on the Cologne events. For all your huff and puff, you haven't produced a single reliable source to back your disgusting POV that the women made it up to blame refugees. Just because you want something to be a certain way doesn't make it so. See this (a Malaysian source because you'd no doubt call any Western one an Alt-right conspiracy), the police say the accused can't be found, rather than it being false (how many unsolved crimes are there throughout the world? They never found the killer of Tupac, does that mean he faked his death?). There are also hundreds of reliable sources on how the definition of a sexual crime in Germany was anachronistic and charges were rare, until it was amended in July 2016 as a result of this case.

I have found your obvious sock account Hilsea, and it's just a matter of time before you're blocked. I would recommend you find a new website to vent on because you have contributed nothing here apart from ranting and raving. Ciao Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]