Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Electronic harassment. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• LuckyLouie you know better than me I'm not the one at fault here. I worked hard these last days to produce a fairly detached and comprehensible article for Electronic harassment according to reliable sources. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly confused about which view is the mainstream one [1]. The encyclopedia does not give equal validity or undue weight to fringe perspectives. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly making no sense when citing wikipedia's policies as you please. You are accusing me of pushing fringe perspectives when all I'm doing is describing the sources perspective. Why are you so blinded? Is it that you have wikipedian administrative friends? Well, I couldn't care less - sorry Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 ~~~~}}.

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.

Kuru (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear reverts at 19:08, 04:14, 10:25, and 14:02. Unambiguous warning given at 13:39. Kuru (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed I had made more than three reverts in 24 hours. I wrongly thought the rule was simply about 3 reverts every day, rather than every 24 hours. My mistake. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

You appear to be here to Right Great Wrongs. If you carry on in your current vein, you'll be banned, so I suggest you back off and learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UHmmm... what? I'm just trying to help build the encyclopedia. Does wikipedia belong to you and your friends? Please, get a grip. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be humble, being a new editor. Belligerence will get you banned regardless who owns wikipedia, since you obviously do not understand yet how it works. For starters, please read carefully what is written in the posted message, including the wikilinks therein. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better be a belligerent new editor than a seasoned pompous idiot, wouldn't you agree? Please get off. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be in your life, but not in wikipedia. A yet another rule for you to learn is WP:NPA. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Psychotronics has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance in copyrights issues but, are you telling me I violated copyrights by copy-pasting (and also expanding at some degree) the following sentence: "the field dealing with the construction of devices capable of enhancing and/or reproducing certain psi phenomena (such as psychokinesis in the case of ‘psychotronic generators’ developed by Robert Pavlita)"?

By the way you're also wrong about the source I used to report that sentence. You mentioned this in the edit summary, but I had openly cited the The Parapsychological Association^[1].

Conveying the fact I'm in breach of the rules on copyrights I guess you could have at the very least simply rephrased that small paragraph for the good of the encyclopedia, instead of attacking me.. uh? Are you trying to be vendictive because of our harsh exchange of opinions on the Electronic harassment talkpage? I hope to be wrong.. maybe I'm misinterpreting this wholly. It's just that I don't like your attitude - sorry. I understand as a newcomer I may not grab the ins and outs of wikipedia, but your attitude is simply repelling. Concluding anyway, don't take this on a personal level because I understand it has to do with wikipedia as a whole. Keep well then.

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you previously used alternate accounts here? Kuru (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

banned from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at PS#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]