User talk:Paperkings

hi i am paperkings

List of NHL franchise post-season droughts[edit]

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Deadman137 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs, you may be blocked from editing. Deadman137 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Deadman137 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Block Me[edit]

The conference Standings say that The Islanders are going to Win Ottawa will lose My edits were constructive Paperkings (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa has already clinched a playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. Nashville has already clinched a playoff spot in the Western Conference. The Islanders play in the Eastern Conference and have already been eliminated. You continue to replace the Nashville Predators with the New York Islanders in the Western Conference Playoffs which is entirely incorrect. I agree that you should be blocked if you continue with these false edits. MJuchno34 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But They Are two Points Out[edit]

If they Win They Will get it NY islanders Paperkings (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing Warning #2[edit]

You are being warned a second time about your disruptive edits on 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs. If you continue your disruptive editing you will be reported to an admin who has the ability to block you. Conyo14 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Selkirk, Manitoba. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selkirk, Manitoba‎[edit]

There is no 2018 Canadian census and making up facts simply because you want them to be true is vandalism. Stop. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating "facts" because you want Selkirk to be a city. There is no 2018 census. Just like your myriad warnings for your other edits, Wikipedia is not a place for you to forecast things you desire. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The census numbers for 2016 have been released. Stop lashing out and vandalizing articles simply because you didn't get your way with the Hockey articles. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to WP:AIV for repeated vandalism. Considering that is really all you have done with this account, you can probably expect a rather lengthy block. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. An edit you recently made to Ashley Cole seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ashley Cole 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 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to National Women's Soccer League. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ashley Cole. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ashley Cole, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Paperkings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This Guys Name is Ash Cole Not Ashley Cole Because its a Girly Name I Know This was Edit warring Paperkings (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Knowingly edit-warring to introduce false information? And this isn't even the first time? Sorry, I don't think you're here to improve the encyclopedia. I have set the block length to indefinite. Huon (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.