User talk:Mattbevenour

March 2016

Hello, I'm Cahk. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Erika Schwartz without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cahk (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. Cahk (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Erika Schwartz, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. I noticed that after the last warning by Cakh, you went ahead and removed more content. Please don't do this. You are exhibiting behavior that is indicative of someone with a conflict of interest. Delta13C (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sourced material and replace it with unsourced material. You are more than welcome to add information on Erika Schwartz, but please make sure it is reliably sourced. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about why your edits are being reverted on this page. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Erika Schwartz.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You appear to have a conflict of interest. Delta13C (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines, as you did at Erika Schwartz. 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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cheban

I see you've been blocked before for adding promotional content. If you continue doing so at Jonathan Cheban, your next Wikipedia block will be significantly longer than 31 hours. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]