User talk:Enigma8

Welcome[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! the panda ₯’ 10:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

The constructive response to a {{Hoax}} tag on an article is to add reliable sources, not to simply delete it without explanation. Likewise, the way to deal with citation needed tags is to provide a reliable source, not to remove the tag. I have reverted your edits to Gabriel de Saint Nicholas and will tag you for vandalism if you make the same changes again. Please take any concerns to the article's talk page. Moonraker (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma8, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Enigma8! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gabriel de Saint Nicholas. 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. Moonraker (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gabriel de Saint Nicholas, 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. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 02:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gabriel de Saint Nicholas. Moonraker (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misclicked and my undo of your edit at the above article was saved before I wrote a proper edit summary. Please do not remove the deletion notice. It can only be removed by an administrator. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gabriel de Saint Nicholas 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. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. DrKiernan (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts[edit]

Your editing pattern shows some striking similarities to Romroyals (talk · contribs) and Jetseticons (talk · contribs) and 46.107.174.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Are you perhaps using several accounts or editing while logged out? Per Wikipedia:sock puppetry, in most circumstances editors should only use one account and should certainly do so when editing the same article. If you do use alternate accounts for some reason, then they should be linked together as detailed at WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Alternatively, I can block the other accounts for you if you have lost the passwords, and you can continue to use this account only. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]