User talk:Annonymous Andy

June 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm ProcrasinatingReader. I noticed that in this edit to Andrew Garbarino, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed biased information which was put in place by his opponents political campaign. I have been communicating with Wikipedia about locking this page.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Andrew Garbarino. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That information is biased commentary and not factual. I will continue to remove it. Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mike LiPetri. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mike LiPetri. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Andrew Garbarino. 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 ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]