Ttbakiatwoam

Hello- you clearly have a strong POV (point of view) regarding Dennis Merzel. This is not the place for advocacy or promotion, which your edits to his article clearly constituted. Please review editing guidelines, and please make any additions more carefully considering them. It is also suggested by the guidelines that if you have a strong POV regarding the subject, you perhaps shouldn't edit at all if you are unable to be objective, which your last round of edits clearly weren't anywhere even near. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My edits are researched and sourced appropriately with guidelines. There is not a POV to this article It presents the information from its references.

says you. Three - oops, now four - other editors are opposing your approach to the Merzel page. Please take your proposed edits to 'talk' FIRST, seek consensus, and go from there. This page is contentious. You will not get the changes you seek by edit warring - though it may get you blocked. But you seem to have been down this road before, which is maybe why you created a new ID. Just guessing.Tao2911 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tao2911 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AlexB531 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Enso 83 (talk · contribs) is either your sock or a meat puppet. Either way, you have gone too far in your edit war over the Dennis Merzel article, so I have blocked you for one week. Favonian (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am confused as to what those are but I will look at their pages after I read this. Could you please explain how/why my edits are not valid? I simply took what was already on the page and edited it to include more information. It is clear that the page in contention here has been consistently redacted of valid references and information by users Joshua Jonathan and Tao2911. I have referenced every piece of information I posted Multiple times from reliable media sources as described in the BLP policy. I have written a page that does not put a favorable or defaming light on the subject. If there is an issue with the page in the form I wrote it in please feel free to edit the page. However, a complete reversal of the information there in is not an appropriate response to the changes. As you can see by my edits. I have included all the information on the old page and added some additional information. I have taken the "suggestions" of these other users into account and continue to edit the page to reflect the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttbakiatwoam (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2012‎ (UTC)

You were warned above against edit warring and informed about the likely consequences. When that didn't stop you, sanctions had to be imposed. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you have blocked me and I am ok with the policy. However, that does not answer my question. What is wrong with the edits I have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttbakiatwoam (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Several editor have pointed out that your contributions violated WP:NPOV. Instead of trying to find a consensus on the talk page, you kept reverting to your own version. That is edit warring. Favonian (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading the talk page and looking at the history it was very clear to me that those individual would not discuss the issue they simply want their version of the page to stand. I have included everything from their page. What more would you like to see?