Your edits are problematic and I have reverted again. As the edit summary says, a fictional character can hardly be a notable resident. Furthermore, the information you added to the lead has been reverted as well, because it is unreferenced. The reason it is unreferenced of course is that a reference doesn't exist. As far as your Chav claim goes, Staines isn't even mentioned in our Chav article. Moriori ( talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Staines-upon-Thames, where you deliberately added incorrect information, you will be
blocked from editing.
Moriori (
talk) 22:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to
Ben Carson.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Alexf
(talk) 21:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
MrClog ( talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.} El_C 19:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Talk:The Babylon Bee. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Justiyaya. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
Bret Weinstein—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help desk. Thanks.
Justiyaya (
talk) 22:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:23, 2 July 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:Cs1327 reported by User:Novem Linguae (Result: ). Thank you. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Your edits are problematic and I have reverted again. As the edit summary says, a fictional character can hardly be a notable resident. Furthermore, the information you added to the lead has been reverted as well, because it is unreferenced. The reason it is unreferenced of course is that a reference doesn't exist. As far as your Chav claim goes, Staines isn't even mentioned in our Chav article. Moriori ( talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Staines-upon-Thames, where you deliberately added incorrect information, you will be
blocked from editing.
Moriori (
talk) 22:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to
Ben Carson.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Alexf
(talk) 21:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
MrClog ( talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.} El_C 19:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Talk:The Babylon Bee. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Justiyaya. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
Bret Weinstein—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help desk. Thanks.
Justiyaya (
talk) 22:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:23, 2 July 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:Cs1327 reported by User:Novem Linguae (Result: ). Thank you. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)