User talk:Nchs 89

Your edits on Autism Research Institute

You and your two compatriots are going to have to work with others and submit to review the kind of wholesale removals you've been making. In general information which is properly sourced needs justification for its deletion.

Also, it's apparent at least one of you has a conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before proceeding further. Mangoe (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict here - I'm a journalist. The citations used in the reverted article do not provide evidence of a staunch position. I first noticed it when I was writing an article for Autism Awareness month and corrected it after I noticed the COI that occurred earlier this year.

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Autism Research Institute. 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 have been reverted, resolve discussion on talk before re adding content. MrBill3 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "slanderous statements". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are engaged in tendentious editing advancing a fringe point of view. This is unacceptable per Wikipedia policies. As an editor with no other interests on Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further warning if this continues. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Difulton (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.