User talk:Ramdiesel
February 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Abitab
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the
Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on
If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,
March 2015
Your recent editing history at Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Huon (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ramdiesel reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: ). Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
Why Dont??? Universidad Empresarial
Why dont you expose the supposed edit warring involves you earsing everything we expose?? I mean not only my editions, also users Musiccafeangela and Emily.H.Kitty had been earsed because of your UNDO actions!!Ramdiesel (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, well, they turned out to be sockpuppets, so their edits are only of historic interest. Talking of which, have you used other accounts here? What about PolandMEC, for example? Or Porscheclub? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |