B Lynn33

December 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Indus river dolphin. 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 discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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. SMS ^Talk 23:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Indus river dolphin

Don't undo an edit and don't give any reason whatsoever. As I've been saying in the edit summary, "This is not how to do references. Either attach them correctly to what they are sourcing or don't add them."

You are doing the references completely wrong. There should not be two reference sections. There should not be alot references that don't source anything. Please either write something that the references goto, or attach them to something they source. Bgwhite (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read what other editors are saying. I have reversed your [latest edit] to the Indus river dolphin article because I too cannot see why we need a long list of references that don't actually source anything. I can only reiterate what has been said before - add the references to specific parts of the text. Green Giant (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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. -- SMS ^Talk 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Indus river dolphin. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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) 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Indus river dolphin. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  Favonian (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Block extended indefinitely

Your block evasion using the account Britt33 constitutes sockpuppetry and your block has therefore been extended indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)