Coming to Town.
Hi, FobTown, thank you for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.238.54 ( talk) 15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, FobTown. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions or .
: Noyster
(talk),
07:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Oliver Kahn does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Oliver Kahn, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The changes were again unexplained. The looked harmless, but it's not clear that they were, why the changes were necessary or why they were being made. It may be obvious to you what you're doing, but it's not to others.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to
Oliver Kahn, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mario Fernandes ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I just reverted your change at Lev Yashin. It reverted a bunch of changes I made two days ago. I would recommend making your changes in smaller edits. That way the good changes don't get thrown out with the changes requiring improvement. Please be careful to properly format your references and to avoid copyright violations. Regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please see WP:CITEWEB to learn how to format sources correctly. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 04:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
What are you trying to achieve with this? A lot of your other edits seem constructive so I am not sure why you made this one. Please don't do this again. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Happy Together (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Please do not re-add content to the Types of tennis match article that is clearly out of scope, per the article title and existing content. If you intend to create separate articles for this content you can use your sandbox page to build these articles before publishing them. -- Wolbo ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Types of tennis match, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Wolbo (
talk)
16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Chinese cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Infernal Affairs into
The Departed. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
16:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I began this article some year ago, because I felt it was an important story to tell. I might remove the label of Black Widow from the introductory paragraph. While it may be true that some consider her with this label, it has been often attached to women who murder their husbands. I did not see it as a universal label. If you have an attribution of who called her that, you might include it later in the article. I think its early prominent position seems to overemphasize her behavior in a way that other editors will find biased. I have no other concerns with you entries. Thank you for your contributions. Rococo1700 ( talk) 15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Allied submarines in the Pacific War into
Tonnage war. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
17:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, FobTown. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello FobTown, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
List of Huawei phones have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
AlanM1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Enemy of the State (film), but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Wikia/Fandom is generally not considered a
reliable source per
WP:RSP#Wikia.
Please also consider using edit summaries per
WP:ES. Thanks! —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
18:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Technical support scam.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Additionally, YouTube generally is not considered a
reliable source for referencing purposes, especially if just posted as a loose link rather than a reasonable bibliographic annotation. Thank you.
DMacks (
talk)
21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Not filling in the source properly leaves it open to link rot. Add the title, publisher, date, etc. Rhys Mayall ( talk) 21:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not revert non-vandalism without giving an edit summary explaining why you are reverting their contributions. StaticVapor message me! 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. StaticVapor message me! 05:57, 7 June 2019 (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. Thank you.
Trillfendi (
talk)
18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prometheus (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xenomorph ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did on
Buick Century. This violates
Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Vossanova
o<
19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Buick Century. See
Talk:Buick Century#Unsourced content for discussion.
Vossanova
o<
16:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the addition, but I've rv'd it as per my edit summary. Ericoides ( talk) 05:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark
this link for convenience. For more information, please see
WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
13:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Look FobTown stop changing the article on championship ring. The MLS is not one of the big four I understand but soccer ⚽️ 🥅 is the fastest growing sport in the United States. The MLS Cup is an important championship game so please FobTown accept the MLS Cup championship ring here. It has to stay here in the article. Also I will never ever remove any other article here. I also believe that the MLS Cup is just as important as the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Championship, and the World Series. talk User:NYC6x7x 14:25 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Wrong FobTown I will continue to edit because you are 100% wrong. There is nothing wrong with the MLS Cup ring here. Also the MLS will grow to 30 teams or even higher within the next several years before the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Soccer ⚽️ 🥅 is the fastest growing sport in the United States 🇺🇸. So let us keep it to my format. Restricting to the big four leagues is wrong. talk User:NYC6x7x 10:05 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Eagles247. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Gregg Williams seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horse-collar tackle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drew Pearson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi- can you correct an error on the Bill Belichick coaching tree? There is an error as to the number and name of coaches he worked for. The article lists the number as 5, but it is actually 6. Rick Forzano is absent, but he was the coach of the Lions in 1976 before resigning after starting the season 1-3. Tommy Hudspeth took over for Forzano. See here for more info. Thank you. 108.21.182.146 ( talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sleath56 ( talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (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. Thank you.
Sleath56 (
talk)
04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
331dot (
talk)
11:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
You have consistently made edits which are pushing a POV (WP:NPOV), using sources that don't support or weakly support your statements and have even went to twist what the sources say simply to push that POV. For example, you've tried to say that the Russian "regime has a history of 'manipulat[ing] medical statistics for political purposes' in which your language obviously shows that you're intentionally attempting to avoid NPOV (thanks for that) while you twist the person's words, as she said "the state is ready to manipulate medical statistics for political purposes" while the source has nothing about this apparent history you were trying to claim. You've also tried putting this under the "misinformation" section where this does not belong - alleged cover-ups by the governments in their response still belong in their own place which is appropriately named. But, despite explaining the issues with your edits, you simply revert without any reason.
You've also made contributions not supported or very weakly supported by a source, tried establishing "facts" with questionable sources (using only a single opinion/analysis pieces) or you've included a source but that source doesn't support anything you've written. You're removing my valid edits without giving a reason or poor reasons, such as something along the lines of 'this is state media which is completely banned from WP' (in which you would be lying), and even though I've added an additional reference, you somehow still think there's justification in removing it in its entirety. Not to mention that your edits have at times consisted of poorly worded sentences with broken grammar/spelling.
Your talk page shows you have a history of troublesome edits and edit-warring, in which you've even been blocked from editing recently due to it. Yet, somehow, you have not learned and are still engaging in the same behaviour that these warnings and bans were supposed to deter. I am not going to edit-war with you, however if you're going to continue this kind of behaviour, I'll have no choice but to report this. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia guidelines and ensure that you are familiar with them. Mellk ( talk) 15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The changes you have made are not explicitly stated in the article. Therefore it is original research. Please stop making changes or an administrator will have to intervene. -- Acefitt 19:27, 2 April 2020 (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:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. —
MarkH21
talk
02:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been given a final warning after your recent EW block. Amidst an ongoing discussion and without consensus, you have re-inserted the content that you were edit-warring over previously. —
MarkH21
talk
15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Citobun (
talk)
01:46, 14 May 2020 (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:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. —
MarkH21
talk
21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the second time I've had to deal with you. Stop being combative and adding irrelevant information, it wastes my time having to revert your edits until you give up and go find some other page to troll and other editors to annoy until you are blocked. It's tiresome. -- Ace*YYC 15:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I have decided to nominate the page, COVID-19 pandemic, as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added 30% of text on the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed the reception section added by you in the mentioned article, as briefly explained in the edit summary here. As I found you to be an experienced wikipedian and myself being a new one here, I thought it to be my duty to inform you. If you think I am wrong, I will request you to first discuss on the article's talk page before reverting my edit because I am very firm on my stand that the section should not be there as it was with only those sources and puffery tone. If you think I made a mistake, please point it out with suitable reasons. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 09:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucky iron fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phoenix (2020 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Jae-woo.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, your additions to the article were Bold, but other editors have Reverted them. (Multiple times, in fact.) The news step in the BRD process, is to Discuss at Talk:Stack interchange if you want to restore them. As they are not full stack interchanges, I don't see there being much interest in restoring that content, which is why it has been removed five times now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Please revert your changes regarding Highway 7187:
Regards, Floydian τ ¢ 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 7187 in the City of Kitchener lying between a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 401 and a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 8 and the roadway known as King Street. 13. That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 8 in the City of Kitchener lying between a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 7187 and a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 7. [1] [2] FobTown ( talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Allow me to chime in if you will. Unless I'm incorrect, (or my chartplotter is) the road designated as 7187 is today around 2 km in length from where the off-ramp of Highway 8 joins King St. E. to the interchange of the 401. AAMOF, that distance isn't even mentioned in the Highway 8 article. ("...a short distance"). Seeing as how that 7187 information is used internally by the Ontario DoT and isn't afforded any longer to the public at large, I don't believe that the piece of road designation to be of much encyclopedic value at all. Regards, Aloha27 talk 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to inform that I have reverted your edit with the same reason as explained earlier. Here > User talk:FobTown#Flower of evil. The way you have written the reception section is not not a correct or I would say a good way. Please see articles like Crash Landing on You, It's Okay to Not Be Okay, and Hospital Playlist for your reference. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 09:40, 12 January 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. Thank you.
Floydian
τ
¢
23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ontario Highway 427 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. Aloha27 talk 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Air raids on Japan into
North American P-51 Mustang. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
14:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Would you mind letting me know where you got this information from? Thanks! JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 00:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems that you and Floydian have had disagreements about content added to Ontario highways, most recently Queen Elizabeth Way. If QEW were not a featured article, I personally would not have issue with your additions about types of interchanges. But it is, so extra scrutiny is needed to make sure every fact is cited to a reliable source and that includes interchange configurations. While I have no reason to doubt that what you added is true, you have to cite it. – Fredddie ™ 04:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ontario Highway 420, you may be blocked from editing. Aloha27 talk 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Man Called God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Whether you support or oppose adding politics section on China page, you are welcome to join the discussion in order to help reach consensus. Please also note that the disputed section has already been rewritten, rearranged, and added in Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, hence previous disputed version of the section on China page is by no means suitable to be reverted back since it was not in good form in first place. -- 阿pp ( talk) 05:30, 19 August 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. Thank you.
阿pp (
talk)
15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Thank you. –
Rummskartoffel
15:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to include information that is clearly undue. The entire "disappearance" has been proven to be untrue, yet you insist on having opinions of Sports Illustrated journalists and a random lawyer demonstrably being completely wrong without any opposite angle. This is undue. And I have asked you three times to discuss it yet you haven't. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 07:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove paragraphs of reliable sources, citations, and legitimately sourced edits without discussion first. Please do not say one thing in your edit summary but do something else, or say one thing only but go on to do 9 other things in silence. I find your unreasonable changes to be very disrespectful and disruptive. GeorgiaDC ( talk) 17:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Your reversion [3] deleted about 4835 bytes, that's almost 4000 more bytes than my edit of the intro; in the process you removed references such as Deutsche Welle, SET News, United Daily News, their corresponding sourced edits, as well as souced edits referencing the New York Times and the Guardian. GeorgiaDC ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Have done nothing of the sort. BTW your edit obfuscated the situation (and removed reliable sources, citations, and legitimately sourced edits without discussion), of course I had to revert it. [4] FobTown ( talk) 22:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Kawasaki disease.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Nick Levine (
talk)
16:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for repeatedly reverting edits without good reason and inserting non-NPOV content. What would Wikipedia do without you? Best wishes, CurryCity ( talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Do not revert wholesale [5] [6]. Change only the parts you need and write edit summary accurately, thanks. CurryCity ( talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
FobTown, why do you constantly remove all edits without even a single reason given? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peng_Shuai&diff=1062312460
I Added in the The timing of her writing the post immediately after her break up, which explains trigger of her Post and type of situation she was in, where she felt prompted to make that post. In only a short sentence. You keep reverting without giving any acceptable reasons. I added in to Talk for you to discuss. /info/en/?search=Talk:Peng_Shuai#Add_in_timing_of_her_post_or_not,_in_lede?
And when the China watcher made a claim. Which btw is largely unverified claim that's borderline pov pushing. But that's another matter. I wrote that the China watcher "claimed". To give readers an understanding that it was a claim. Yet you revert that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peng_Shuai&diff=1062195973
Also I expanded Peng's quotes. The information is well sourced and nothing wrong with that edit. Yet you reverted that too.
I have warned you multiple times before to give a reason when reverting my edits. Otherwise it appears you are gaming the system on 3 RR rule. I don't wish to report but settle this on Talk civilly or on here. But I will have to report your edit warring if you continue to simply revert so much edits and real information, without giving any reasons. WesternChristianitytestballi ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It appears that you copied or moved text from
London, Ontario into
Eaton Centre. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
DanCherek (
talk)
21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eaton Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That’s a blatant disregard for the truth. He never called plays. No LB coach calls plays in the NFL! 108.2.144.28 ( talk) 00:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Eaton Centre, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding unsourced statements... you've had WP:RS, WP:UGC, and WP:V pointed out to you multiple times now. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Peng Shuai: Since
Feb 21, you've moved an important paragraph from the intro and made changes to wording and meanings that reverted edits by multiple previous editors, a version that had been stable since Feb 9. Use discussion instead of trying again and again. Don't leave all the work to other editors to open Talk discussions for you again.
CurryCity (
talk)
05:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summaries have been misleading, especially
[7], where it somehow suggests that you supposedly reverted new changes, when in acutality you have been the one making changes to stable version.
CurryCity (
talk)
04:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
CurryCity (
talk)
07:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing
Peng Shuai for one month for persistent edit warring and battleground editing. You are free to edit the article's talkpage. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk
12:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC).
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Deepfriedokra
(talk)
16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Your edits here look like the sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on MeToo movement in China as you've shown at Peng Shuai. You seem to be following CurryCity around. Please discuss your appearances at the WP:ANI thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2022 (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 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.
-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Má vlast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Notifying you that a 3O has been submitted here. CurryCity ( talk) 06:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
On 25 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Guy Lafleur, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Huawei has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk)
13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
2022 Sri Lankan protests, did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your
sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on
my talk page. The
WP:ONUS on adding content falls on the editor that adds it. If you wants to add anything its up for you to use the talk page and prove it. Reverting removals to forcefully push content is not going to work.
UtoD
14:12, 26 May 2022 (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:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: ). Thank you.
UtoD
17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are you removing all my edits? You are pushing your pov that Chinese debt trap is real despite the lowly institute have argued there that it wasn't a Chinese debt trap. So you have to be impartial and not push your pov. I see on Talk you are also arguing with several other commenters on that issues, which means you don't even have consensus. Simpleshooter99 ( talk) 02:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. 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:
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. UtoD 18:41, 20 June 2022 (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:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: ). Thank you.
UtoD
18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed
maintenance templates from
2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Please see
Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Thank you.
Chanaka L (
talk)
16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Please, do not remove maintenance tags without resolving the issue,
I mentioned this in my edit summary. Cheers-- Chanaka L ( talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a
neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Simpleshooter99 (
talk)
21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Given how we have already extensively talked about this some time ago. It's apparently unlikely that we can ever come to an agreement that Sri Lanka's port was not at all leased to pay off Chinese loans..so I suggest we settle it via third opinion. Because you are not willing to even compromise in calling it a claim/opinion and just adamant it is a fact. Despite I keep telling you that too many reliable scholars now debunks it. Hence I think it's best to resolve this with a third opinion. Simpleshooter99 ( talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the article
2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you.
Qiushufang (
talk)
02:21, 25 July 2022 (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. Thank you.
Qiushufang (
talk)
01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2022 Sri Lankan protests. 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:
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a
neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Your recent editing history at Sino-African relations 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.
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. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LilAhok (
talk •
contribs)
04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
01:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)FobTown ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do expect to serve a ban but it shouldn't be indefinite; a couple users have defended the content that I've been trying to restore. [36] [37] FobTown ( talk) 19:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating WP:EW, after being blocked over and over and over again for edit warring, but have not addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Coming to Town.
Hi, FobTown, thank you for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.238.54 ( talk) 15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, FobTown. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions or .
: Noyster
(talk),
07:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Oliver Kahn does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Oliver Kahn, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The changes were again unexplained. The looked harmless, but it's not clear that they were, why the changes were necessary or why they were being made. It may be obvious to you what you're doing, but it's not to others.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to
Oliver Kahn, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mario Fernandes ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I just reverted your change at Lev Yashin. It reverted a bunch of changes I made two days ago. I would recommend making your changes in smaller edits. That way the good changes don't get thrown out with the changes requiring improvement. Please be careful to properly format your references and to avoid copyright violations. Regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please see WP:CITEWEB to learn how to format sources correctly. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 04:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
What are you trying to achieve with this? A lot of your other edits seem constructive so I am not sure why you made this one. Please don't do this again. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Happy Together (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Please do not re-add content to the Types of tennis match article that is clearly out of scope, per the article title and existing content. If you intend to create separate articles for this content you can use your sandbox page to build these articles before publishing them. -- Wolbo ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Types of tennis match, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Wolbo (
talk)
16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Chinese cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Infernal Affairs into
The Departed. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
16:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I began this article some year ago, because I felt it was an important story to tell. I might remove the label of Black Widow from the introductory paragraph. While it may be true that some consider her with this label, it has been often attached to women who murder their husbands. I did not see it as a universal label. If you have an attribution of who called her that, you might include it later in the article. I think its early prominent position seems to overemphasize her behavior in a way that other editors will find biased. I have no other concerns with you entries. Thank you for your contributions. Rococo1700 ( talk) 15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Allied submarines in the Pacific War into
Tonnage war. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
17:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, FobTown. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello FobTown, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
List of Huawei phones have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
AlanM1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Enemy of the State (film), but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Wikia/Fandom is generally not considered a
reliable source per
WP:RSP#Wikia.
Please also consider using edit summaries per
WP:ES. Thanks! —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
18:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Technical support scam.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Additionally, YouTube generally is not considered a
reliable source for referencing purposes, especially if just posted as a loose link rather than a reasonable bibliographic annotation. Thank you.
DMacks (
talk)
21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Not filling in the source properly leaves it open to link rot. Add the title, publisher, date, etc. Rhys Mayall ( talk) 21:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not revert non-vandalism without giving an edit summary explaining why you are reverting their contributions. StaticVapor message me! 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. StaticVapor message me! 05:57, 7 June 2019 (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. Thank you.
Trillfendi (
talk)
18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prometheus (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xenomorph ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did on
Buick Century. This violates
Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Vossanova
o<
19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Buick Century. See
Talk:Buick Century#Unsourced content for discussion.
Vossanova
o<
16:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the addition, but I've rv'd it as per my edit summary. Ericoides ( talk) 05:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark
this link for convenience. For more information, please see
WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
13:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Look FobTown stop changing the article on championship ring. The MLS is not one of the big four I understand but soccer ⚽️ 🥅 is the fastest growing sport in the United States. The MLS Cup is an important championship game so please FobTown accept the MLS Cup championship ring here. It has to stay here in the article. Also I will never ever remove any other article here. I also believe that the MLS Cup is just as important as the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Championship, and the World Series. talk User:NYC6x7x 14:25 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Wrong FobTown I will continue to edit because you are 100% wrong. There is nothing wrong with the MLS Cup ring here. Also the MLS will grow to 30 teams or even higher within the next several years before the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Soccer ⚽️ 🥅 is the fastest growing sport in the United States 🇺🇸. So let us keep it to my format. Restricting to the big four leagues is wrong. talk User:NYC6x7x 10:05 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Eagles247. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Gregg Williams seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horse-collar tackle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drew Pearson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi- can you correct an error on the Bill Belichick coaching tree? There is an error as to the number and name of coaches he worked for. The article lists the number as 5, but it is actually 6. Rick Forzano is absent, but he was the coach of the Lions in 1976 before resigning after starting the season 1-3. Tommy Hudspeth took over for Forzano. See here for more info. Thank you. 108.21.182.146 ( talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sleath56 ( talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (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. Thank you.
Sleath56 (
talk)
04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
331dot (
talk)
11:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
You have consistently made edits which are pushing a POV (WP:NPOV), using sources that don't support or weakly support your statements and have even went to twist what the sources say simply to push that POV. For example, you've tried to say that the Russian "regime has a history of 'manipulat[ing] medical statistics for political purposes' in which your language obviously shows that you're intentionally attempting to avoid NPOV (thanks for that) while you twist the person's words, as she said "the state is ready to manipulate medical statistics for political purposes" while the source has nothing about this apparent history you were trying to claim. You've also tried putting this under the "misinformation" section where this does not belong - alleged cover-ups by the governments in their response still belong in their own place which is appropriately named. But, despite explaining the issues with your edits, you simply revert without any reason.
You've also made contributions not supported or very weakly supported by a source, tried establishing "facts" with questionable sources (using only a single opinion/analysis pieces) or you've included a source but that source doesn't support anything you've written. You're removing my valid edits without giving a reason or poor reasons, such as something along the lines of 'this is state media which is completely banned from WP' (in which you would be lying), and even though I've added an additional reference, you somehow still think there's justification in removing it in its entirety. Not to mention that your edits have at times consisted of poorly worded sentences with broken grammar/spelling.
Your talk page shows you have a history of troublesome edits and edit-warring, in which you've even been blocked from editing recently due to it. Yet, somehow, you have not learned and are still engaging in the same behaviour that these warnings and bans were supposed to deter. I am not going to edit-war with you, however if you're going to continue this kind of behaviour, I'll have no choice but to report this. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia guidelines and ensure that you are familiar with them. Mellk ( talk) 15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The changes you have made are not explicitly stated in the article. Therefore it is original research. Please stop making changes or an administrator will have to intervene. -- Acefitt 19:27, 2 April 2020 (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:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. —
MarkH21
talk
02:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been given a final warning after your recent EW block. Amidst an ongoing discussion and without consensus, you have re-inserted the content that you were edit-warring over previously. —
MarkH21
talk
15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Citobun (
talk)
01:46, 14 May 2020 (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:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. —
MarkH21
talk
21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the second time I've had to deal with you. Stop being combative and adding irrelevant information, it wastes my time having to revert your edits until you give up and go find some other page to troll and other editors to annoy until you are blocked. It's tiresome. -- Ace*YYC 15:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I have decided to nominate the page, COVID-19 pandemic, as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added 30% of text on the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed the reception section added by you in the mentioned article, as briefly explained in the edit summary here. As I found you to be an experienced wikipedian and myself being a new one here, I thought it to be my duty to inform you. If you think I am wrong, I will request you to first discuss on the article's talk page before reverting my edit because I am very firm on my stand that the section should not be there as it was with only those sources and puffery tone. If you think I made a mistake, please point it out with suitable reasons. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 09:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucky iron fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phoenix (2020 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Jae-woo.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, your additions to the article were Bold, but other editors have Reverted them. (Multiple times, in fact.) The news step in the BRD process, is to Discuss at Talk:Stack interchange if you want to restore them. As they are not full stack interchanges, I don't see there being much interest in restoring that content, which is why it has been removed five times now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Please revert your changes regarding Highway 7187:
Regards, Floydian τ ¢ 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 7187 in the City of Kitchener lying between a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 401 and a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 8 and the roadway known as King Street. 13. That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 8 in the City of Kitchener lying between a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 7187 and a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 7. [1] [2] FobTown ( talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Allow me to chime in if you will. Unless I'm incorrect, (or my chartplotter is) the road designated as 7187 is today around 2 km in length from where the off-ramp of Highway 8 joins King St. E. to the interchange of the 401. AAMOF, that distance isn't even mentioned in the Highway 8 article. ("...a short distance"). Seeing as how that 7187 information is used internally by the Ontario DoT and isn't afforded any longer to the public at large, I don't believe that the piece of road designation to be of much encyclopedic value at all. Regards, Aloha27 talk 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to inform that I have reverted your edit with the same reason as explained earlier. Here > User talk:FobTown#Flower of evil. The way you have written the reception section is not not a correct or I would say a good way. Please see articles like Crash Landing on You, It's Okay to Not Be Okay, and Hospital Playlist for your reference. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 09:40, 12 January 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. Thank you.
Floydian
τ
¢
23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ontario Highway 427 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. Aloha27 talk 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Air raids on Japan into
North American P-51 Mustang. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
14:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Would you mind letting me know where you got this information from? Thanks! JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 00:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems that you and Floydian have had disagreements about content added to Ontario highways, most recently Queen Elizabeth Way. If QEW were not a featured article, I personally would not have issue with your additions about types of interchanges. But it is, so extra scrutiny is needed to make sure every fact is cited to a reliable source and that includes interchange configurations. While I have no reason to doubt that what you added is true, you have to cite it. – Fredddie ™ 04:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ontario Highway 420, you may be blocked from editing. Aloha27 talk 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Man Called God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Whether you support or oppose adding politics section on China page, you are welcome to join the discussion in order to help reach consensus. Please also note that the disputed section has already been rewritten, rearranged, and added in Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, hence previous disputed version of the section on China page is by no means suitable to be reverted back since it was not in good form in first place. -- 阿pp ( talk) 05:30, 19 August 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. Thank you.
阿pp (
talk)
15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Thank you. –
Rummskartoffel
15:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to include information that is clearly undue. The entire "disappearance" has been proven to be untrue, yet you insist on having opinions of Sports Illustrated journalists and a random lawyer demonstrably being completely wrong without any opposite angle. This is undue. And I have asked you three times to discuss it yet you haven't. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 07:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove paragraphs of reliable sources, citations, and legitimately sourced edits without discussion first. Please do not say one thing in your edit summary but do something else, or say one thing only but go on to do 9 other things in silence. I find your unreasonable changes to be very disrespectful and disruptive. GeorgiaDC ( talk) 17:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Your reversion [3] deleted about 4835 bytes, that's almost 4000 more bytes than my edit of the intro; in the process you removed references such as Deutsche Welle, SET News, United Daily News, their corresponding sourced edits, as well as souced edits referencing the New York Times and the Guardian. GeorgiaDC ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Have done nothing of the sort. BTW your edit obfuscated the situation (and removed reliable sources, citations, and legitimately sourced edits without discussion), of course I had to revert it. [4] FobTown ( talk) 22:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Kawasaki disease.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Nick Levine (
talk)
16:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for repeatedly reverting edits without good reason and inserting non-NPOV content. What would Wikipedia do without you? Best wishes, CurryCity ( talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Do not revert wholesale [5] [6]. Change only the parts you need and write edit summary accurately, thanks. CurryCity ( talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
FobTown, why do you constantly remove all edits without even a single reason given? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peng_Shuai&diff=1062312460
I Added in the The timing of her writing the post immediately after her break up, which explains trigger of her Post and type of situation she was in, where she felt prompted to make that post. In only a short sentence. You keep reverting without giving any acceptable reasons. I added in to Talk for you to discuss. /info/en/?search=Talk:Peng_Shuai#Add_in_timing_of_her_post_or_not,_in_lede?
And when the China watcher made a claim. Which btw is largely unverified claim that's borderline pov pushing. But that's another matter. I wrote that the China watcher "claimed". To give readers an understanding that it was a claim. Yet you revert that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peng_Shuai&diff=1062195973
Also I expanded Peng's quotes. The information is well sourced and nothing wrong with that edit. Yet you reverted that too.
I have warned you multiple times before to give a reason when reverting my edits. Otherwise it appears you are gaming the system on 3 RR rule. I don't wish to report but settle this on Talk civilly or on here. But I will have to report your edit warring if you continue to simply revert so much edits and real information, without giving any reasons. WesternChristianitytestballi ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It appears that you copied or moved text from
London, Ontario into
Eaton Centre. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
DanCherek (
talk)
21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eaton Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That’s a blatant disregard for the truth. He never called plays. No LB coach calls plays in the NFL! 108.2.144.28 ( talk) 00:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Eaton Centre, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding unsourced statements... you've had WP:RS, WP:UGC, and WP:V pointed out to you multiple times now. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Peng Shuai: Since
Feb 21, you've moved an important paragraph from the intro and made changes to wording and meanings that reverted edits by multiple previous editors, a version that had been stable since Feb 9. Use discussion instead of trying again and again. Don't leave all the work to other editors to open Talk discussions for you again.
CurryCity (
talk)
05:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summaries have been misleading, especially
[7], where it somehow suggests that you supposedly reverted new changes, when in acutality you have been the one making changes to stable version.
CurryCity (
talk)
04:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
CurryCity (
talk)
07:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing
Peng Shuai for one month for persistent edit warring and battleground editing. You are free to edit the article's talkpage. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk
12:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC).
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Deepfriedokra
(talk)
16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Your edits here look like the sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on MeToo movement in China as you've shown at Peng Shuai. You seem to be following CurryCity around. Please discuss your appearances at the WP:ANI thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2022 (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 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.
-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Má vlast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Notifying you that a 3O has been submitted here. CurryCity ( talk) 06:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
On 25 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Guy Lafleur, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Huawei has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk)
13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
2022 Sri Lankan protests, did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your
sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on
my talk page. The
WP:ONUS on adding content falls on the editor that adds it. If you wants to add anything its up for you to use the talk page and prove it. Reverting removals to forcefully push content is not going to work.
UtoD
14:12, 26 May 2022 (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:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: ). Thank you.
UtoD
17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are you removing all my edits? You are pushing your pov that Chinese debt trap is real despite the lowly institute have argued there that it wasn't a Chinese debt trap. So you have to be impartial and not push your pov. I see on Talk you are also arguing with several other commenters on that issues, which means you don't even have consensus. Simpleshooter99 ( talk) 02:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. 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:
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. UtoD 18:41, 20 June 2022 (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:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: ). Thank you.
UtoD
18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed
maintenance templates from
2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Please see
Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Thank you.
Chanaka L (
talk)
16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Please, do not remove maintenance tags without resolving the issue,
I mentioned this in my edit summary. Cheers-- Chanaka L ( talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a
neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Simpleshooter99 (
talk)
21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Given how we have already extensively talked about this some time ago. It's apparently unlikely that we can ever come to an agreement that Sri Lanka's port was not at all leased to pay off Chinese loans..so I suggest we settle it via third opinion. Because you are not willing to even compromise in calling it a claim/opinion and just adamant it is a fact. Despite I keep telling you that too many reliable scholars now debunks it. Hence I think it's best to resolve this with a third opinion. Simpleshooter99 ( talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the article
2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you.
Qiushufang (
talk)
02:21, 25 July 2022 (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. Thank you.
Qiushufang (
talk)
01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2022 Sri Lankan protests. 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:
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a
neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Your recent editing history at Sino-African relations 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.
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. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LilAhok (
talk •
contribs)
04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
01:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)FobTown ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do expect to serve a ban but it shouldn't be indefinite; a couple users have defended the content that I've been trying to restore. [36] [37] FobTown ( talk) 19:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating WP:EW, after being blocked over and over and over again for edit warring, but have not addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.