EditsToday44

November 2020

Hello, I'm NonsensicalSystem. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Grace Randolph, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Grace Randolph, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What they said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added a very strong source, the subject's own Facebook page which lists her birthday. She listed it, I think she knows her own birthday.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 15:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Grace Randolph. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if sourced, please get consensus for adding it on the talk page. Plenty of editors are against you. WP: 3RR prevents me from reverting you again. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate it. EditsToday44 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:EditsToday44 reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: ). Thank you. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:36, 24 November 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Grace Randolph. Stop reverting other editors and adding unsourced content. We’re all tired of it. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 h for WP:3RR and WP:BLP violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonnar212, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am simply trying to protect the subject of the edit from trolls. These editors are insisting that the subject's own Facebook page is not a valid source when when MANY if not MOST Wikipedia pages do not list ANY source for the subject's birthday. There are countless websites that list this as the subject's birthday as well.EditsToday44 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We are not trolls. Per Wikipedia's self-published sources policy, someone's own facebook page is a self-published source and should not be used. If other pages do not have sourced birthdates, then remove them. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then use those websites as sources, rather than Facebook (assuming they follow WP:RS). NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 19:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

it should be noted the user is a confirmed sock. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)