User talk:Theodore Larson 1961

December 2024

Hello, I'm Jpeeling. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. JP (Talk) 11:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --JP (Talk) 12:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. JP (Talk) 12:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHY???? Theodore Larson 1961 (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Pat Buchanan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Whether your edit has merit or not, you may not edit war to attempt to force your preferred version of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you may not have seen this message before you made this revert, I did you the courtesy of reverting it and bringing you back across the 3RR brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theodore, I'm Epsilon.Prota - you've had a few edits reverted recently and thought I'd offer some initial advice. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and requires all those involved in the creation of an article to at least broadly agree on its contents. The recent edits show this isn't currently true, so the next step if you feel you can improve the article is to make the case for your changes on the associated talk page, including sources where relevant. Please don't be disheartened and I wish you the best of luck going forward! Epsilon.Prota (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate Theodore Larson 1961 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Theodore Larson 1962 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theodore Larson 1962. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]