User talk:808gravy

November 2012

Hello, I'm Adrian J. Hunter. Your recent edit to the page Liberal appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberal. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Adrian J. Hunter

You deleted someone else's talk on User talk:Adrian J. Hunter when you added your comment. I undid the edit to restore the deleted post. Please use the "New section" button at the top of the page to start a new comment. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal

May I suggest you read the section on Classical liberalism before redoing your edit to Liberal? The term "liberal" in this sense is "rights" not spending or whatever. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Liberal with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, 808gravy, and sorry for my assumption of bad faith. I'm not sure what you mean by "the current political environment", but I live on a remote and sparsely populated island, so what makes the news may be different where I live.

The page Liberal is actually a bit unusual: it's ostensibly a disambiguation page, meaning it shouldn't be a source of information, just a tool for a reader to find the page they're looking for. But it's hard to direct readers without some kind of definitions, which is why it has as much detail as it does.

Anyway, whatever it is that's bothering you, the best way for you to inform readers is through the relevant articles. But you need to make sure your edits are neutral and supported by reliable sources. You can't get your way by just redoing edits that have been reverted; you need to work with other editors, not against them.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Liberal, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]