Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 6teen have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Cr1TiKaL, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Laplorfill (
talk)
18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Even though it's not his alias like the note says he is widely also known as penguinz0, which is what the section is for 'Also known as' Bobby690 ( talk) 03:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I know that. But a simple google trend search should tell you that more people google penguinz0 than Cr1TiKaL and he is also known as penguinz0 Bobby690 ( talk) 04:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
None of the other names have any citations so I don't understand why this one needs to. Especially since his most known name is without a doubt penguinz0. Bobby690 ( talk) 05:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This is why i referenced the note earlier as it clearly states that even though it's not his alias it's his channel name. This is just the same as 'big moist' being his snapchat name in "Face reveal and content change (2015–2017)" Bobby690 ( talk) 05:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Cr1TiKaL shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Laplorfill ( talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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:Bobby690 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: ). Thank you.
Laplorfill (
talk)
17:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)This is the only time I will warn you; stop making edits to articles without providing a proving source, as you did at Cr1TiKaL. Please read the talk page of the article before making any more edits after your one-week block. KullyKeemaKa ( talk) 16:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 6teen have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Cr1TiKaL, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Laplorfill (
talk)
18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Even though it's not his alias like the note says he is widely also known as penguinz0, which is what the section is for 'Also known as' Bobby690 ( talk) 03:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I know that. But a simple google trend search should tell you that more people google penguinz0 than Cr1TiKaL and he is also known as penguinz0 Bobby690 ( talk) 04:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
None of the other names have any citations so I don't understand why this one needs to. Especially since his most known name is without a doubt penguinz0. Bobby690 ( talk) 05:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This is why i referenced the note earlier as it clearly states that even though it's not his alias it's his channel name. This is just the same as 'big moist' being his snapchat name in "Face reveal and content change (2015–2017)" Bobby690 ( talk) 05:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Cr1TiKaL shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Laplorfill ( talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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:Bobby690 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: ). Thank you.
Laplorfill (
talk)
17:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)This is the only time I will warn you; stop making edits to articles without providing a proving source, as you did at Cr1TiKaL. Please read the talk page of the article before making any more edits after your one-week block. KullyKeemaKa ( talk) 16:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)