User talk:LaciElizabeth

Adam Leitman Bailey

The article has a long history of promotional editing and whitewashing by Bailey associates and colleagues (as well as efforts by others to cast him in an unfavorable light), indeed with a lot of discussion over the very material you seem determined, without comment, to excise. Please discuss any changes you'd like to make at the article Talk page rather than simply making the same edit again; and be mindful in particular about avoiding an edit war. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Adam Leitman Bailey, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Adam Leitman Bailey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Reccopolis, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]