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 Joe Bonamassa, 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. Thank you. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
fan-given nickname. That's not WP:VERIFIABLE from the given source and is your own original research. I also recommend reading WP:BLP, WP:SPS, WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Joe Bonamassa 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; read about 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. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Just because people are reverting me does not mean they are right.WP:3RR doesn't care who's right and wrong. If you revert to your preferred version more than 3 times in 24 hours you are edit waring, and are liable to be blocked. I strongly recommend you self-revert, and discuss this at the talk page (see also WP:BRD) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Joe Bonamassa, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
your obsession regarding the addition of scandal sheet content to the encyclopedia is noted.
and reverted.
Augmented Seventh (
talk) 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
your scrubbing of information from a singular article is noted.
the quote sourced to social media was restored. Augmented Seventh ( talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
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.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 Joe Bonamassa, 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. Thank you. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
fan-given nickname. That's not WP:VERIFIABLE from the given source and is your own original research. I also recommend reading WP:BLP, WP:SPS, WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Joe Bonamassa 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; read about 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. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Just because people are reverting me does not mean they are right.WP:3RR doesn't care who's right and wrong. If you revert to your preferred version more than 3 times in 24 hours you are edit waring, and are liable to be blocked. I strongly recommend you self-revert, and discuss this at the talk page (see also WP:BRD) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Joe Bonamassa, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
your obsession regarding the addition of scandal sheet content to the encyclopedia is noted.
and reverted.
Augmented Seventh (
talk) 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
your scrubbing of information from a singular article is noted.
the quote sourced to social media was restored. Augmented Seventh ( talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
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.