User talk:Veronica19

Welcome!

Hello, Veronica19, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Plibersek

Hi. Your second edit to this article was better than the first, but it is unsourced. You cannot assert that Emily's List subscribes to these beliefs without providing reliable sources as references to back up your claim. To avoid an edit war I have raised the issue at Talk:Tanya Plibersek. Feel free to add to the discussion. Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --ELEKHH^T 09:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Tanya Plibersek. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wrong template, it was more disruptive editing and 3rr, sorry. --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tanya Plibersek. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You've been asked multiple times, to take your changes to the talk page. Perhaps you should do so. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Veronica19 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: ). Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Veronica19 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: ). Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used to contravene Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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.

Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a BLP violation-only account and the seriousness of the changes you've been making has escalated over the day, this block has been made under the provision for "involved" admins to respond to clear violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as stated at WP:BLPREMOVE. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]