User talk:Astbam

External Link

Hi,

The reason I removed the gallery because it's a fansite and the gallery is also self published. If people wanted to see pictures of buses they'll look for them. And can you please stick to one account.

CourtneyBonnick (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vauxhall bus station. 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. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Hello, Please refrain from edit warring, You've been politely told your additions can't be added as they fail NOTDIR and NOTTRAVEL, Thank you. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Vauxhall bus station 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. 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. Charles (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR nomination 23 August 2014

For when the WP:3RR nomination 23 August 2014.

The posts I have made to Vauxhall bus station were rejected by said editor on the basis that was in breach of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.[1]. Hence the two sections were copy-pasted to the article's talk page, and it asked the relevant section/s pertaining to the breach be highlighted.[2] The objecting editor elected not to do so, but simply delete.[3]

In response to the above threat to impose an edit war block, the request was again made on the editor's talk page.[4] Again this was deleted without response.[5]

I would have thought that if my edits were in violation of policy as asserted, it would have been a very simple exercise for the objecting editor to highlight the relevant section. Only conclusion I have been able to draw from the deletions without response is that the assertion my post is in breach of policy is without foundation. Astbam (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Vauxhall bus station. Charles (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vauxhall bus station. Charles (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Talk:Vauxhall bus station. Charles (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators Noticeboard Incident

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

This matter is regarding improper reversions of your talk page comments at Vauxhall bus station. This is in response to your request for editor assistance in the matter [6]. You are not in trouble, but it may be worthwhile for you to add your comments to the incident report. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astbam, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Nsk92 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And surprise, surprise it came back with a blank. [7] Well that was a waste of everyone’s time. Good sleuthing User:Nsk92. Quack, Quack! Astbam (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trading names versus full company names

Please can I direct your attention to WP:NCCORP#First_sentence. Thanks, Waggers TALK 11:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]