User talk:Pearson Wright

December 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Mike48374. I have reviewed the changes you have recently made to Pirates of the Caribbean Online. Due to your changes containing vandalism, they have been removed for now. If you think I made a mistake in reverting your changes, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Thank you,

~ Mike48374

Pirates of the Caribbean Online[edit]

First, the next time you call my edits "vandalisms", I'll have you reported to the admins. I've been editing Wikipedia much longer than you did, and the community knows I'm not a vandal.

Second, stop lying. No admin has edited the article for months. Your claims that "an admin has intervened and has taken appropriate action" are nothing but lies. I'm older than you, kid, and your attempts to intimidate me simply won't work.

Third, I know who you are, and why are you here. You are here because you think you can use Wikipedia in your personal crusade against TLOPO team. Your edits clearly show that (1, 2, 3). I know about the TLOPO-POR feud, and honestly, I don't care who's right and who's wrong, but Wikipedia is not your private battlefield. Fight your battles somewhere else. Both projects have the right to be mentioned in the article.

Fourth, only the names of an article's subject are written in bold and only when they are first mentioned in the article. There is no need to write anything else in bold letters.

Fifth, TLOPO is way older than your project. It deserves to be mentioned first. It's not Wikipedia's fault if you won the second place in this race.

Sixth, the links to both projects are clearly visible in the References section. Whoever wants to see and maybe play both games can easily access them there. There is no need to have the links in the intro section. Good day.--Max Tomos (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Pirates of the Caribbean Online shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.--Max Tomos (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The admins have been notified about you. Defend your case here. Good day.--Max Tomos (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.E. : Pirates of the Caribbean Online[edit]

I have replied to your first essay of a message via your talk page. Have a good read.

As for your second implementation/threat, it's funny that you're threatening me with a "ban" if I don't stop reverting your vandalisms when in fact you've been doing the exact same thing for several days now. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

Regards,

Pearson Wright

Request[edit]

Please do not engage with Max Tomos in an edit war any further.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

This edit [1] is an open admission of conflict of interest. You need to read Terms of use and you also need to step back from that article. You may propose specific changes on the Talk page, but you should not edit the article directly. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]