User talk:Alex1977-1

January 2016

Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Myles Munroe has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Sunday Adelaja. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nas, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex1977-1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Alex1977-1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Frederick Achom, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Frederick Achom. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 17:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alex1977-1. You have new messages at Talk: Frederick Achom.
Message added 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Frederick Achom 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 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. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Frederick Achom.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.  only (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.  m.o.p 17:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex1977-1, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)