User talk:Pawatch

I know you think that you are going to keep adding back Rep. Wheatley's bio, but it's not going to happen. I urge you to read the standards on neytral point of view and the standards on conflict of interest. In the meantime, I will continue to revert your additions. Montco (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jake Wheatley, without explaining the 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. Montco (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Montco (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Please review the guidelines on the three revert rule. Montco (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Montco, I think you are mistaken about our intentions. I believe that you have reverted this page and intend harm with your posting. Please refrain from further vandalizing this page and others. It is our understanding that you are a repeat offender here and on other pages. Thank you.

No misunderstanding. You are replacing Rep. Wheatley's page with his official bio on several occasions. I have created a report of this incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR in order to let the administrators sort it out. You had an opportunity to discuss these edits since this morning. Montco (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Jake Wheatley. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Additionally, Monto is correct that your edits violate our neutral-point-of-view policy as well as not conforming to our manual of style. I see nothing libelous in the article; it's written in a neutral manner and sourced properly with reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]