User talk:Ducatidave5

September 2012

Please do not add your own research based on facts to Wikipedia articles, as you did to MMR vaccine controversy. Doing so breaches my version of formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at MMR vaccine controversy, you may be blocked from editing. Continued edit warring over the same thing borders on vandalism. Stop. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at MMR vaccine controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Skeptical Raptor, by promoting pro-vaccine propaganda by reverting accurate, balanced, and legit edits to this page, you hamper Wikipedia for everyone. I have not the time, patience, nor energy to continue ammeding what I now consider, because of people like you, a worthless vaccine refference source.

Your recent editing history at MMR vaccine controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at MMR vaccine controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be blocked, as my edits are legit and verifiable. You however, will be reported for failure to maintain a positive editing envionment for others. I imagine this will have a negative impact on your desires to "administrate" on Wiki.

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. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at MMR vaccine controversy. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]