Parispv

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amber Riley, you may be blocked from editing. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My edit is correct. She is not an author, much less an activist. Parispv (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I expect she is since there are sourced statements in the article, though leads are discouraged from listing many occupations. But you know those are not the edits I'm referring to. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And what are those sources? Can you specify? She does not have any published books, nor does she participate in any benefit events. Parispv (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That, as I said, and as you very well know, is not the issue here. It may be what you want to make the issue out to be so you can pretend to other eyes that your main edits aren't targeted at misdirecting different actresses' perceived success. But if you want to see the sources, you are welcome to skim read the article you are insistent on removing sourced content from. Kingsif (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have read the entire article, and as I said, there is nowhere where it says that she has written anything to consider her an author. She is not an activist either, since she does not do anything beneficial for society. I'm not trying to manipulate anything, I'm just speaking facts, and you still don't explain anything. Parispv (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello, I'm Cerebral726. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lea Michele without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have previously been warned about removing content from Lea Michele without valid reasons. Stonewalling by continuing to edit Lea Michele without responding on the Talk Page is borderline vandalism. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You have continued to revert the addition of well-cited content on the Lea Michele without engaging in dialogue on the talk page, against Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution. Please discuss on the talk page, and do not WP:STONEWALL. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you consider a stupid internet meme to be an important part of an actress's "personal life" is really weird. Parispv (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Lea Michele#Literacy. You also seem to be engaging in behavior that should be avoided, including Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, as well as WP:Personal attacks. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:THIRDOPINION on our discussion at Talk:Lea Michele#Literacy.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Lea Michele 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. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lea Michele. 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:

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. Cerebral726 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo

I have also started a talk page discussion at Talk:Lea Michele#Photo choice on updating the photo for Lea Michele. I am notifying you as you have reverted a couple of updates to this photo and I would like to reach a consensus. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Subheaders

I have also started a talk page discussion at Talk:Lea_Michele#Headers on including subheaders in Lea Michele# Personal life. I am notifying you as you have reverted this addition and I would like to reach a consensus. --Cerebral726 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Parispv:, I have left you a response at Talk:Lea Michele#Headers. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2022 (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:Parispv reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: ). Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, I'm Cerebral726. 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 Lea Michele 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. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you argue your message? I don't understand why you deleted almost all the information I attached for no reason. Parispv (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Timothée Chalamet 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Timothée Chalamet. Brojam (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2022 (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. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 04:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022: Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• When your block expires, you are welcome to continue the discussion on the article's talkpage. Just please stop using reverts as a substitute for discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:40, 22 October 2022 (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. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 21:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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|I had already created the dispute, could you unblock me, please? ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Parispv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't understand why you blocked me. I had already created the dispute, you can check it for yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parispv (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Opening discussion on a talk page does not give you license to continue to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 26 October 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.

• Because of persistent disruption on this page, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #64739

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parispv. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)