User talk:Bobbysue097

March 2024

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)[reply]

The information I provided has a source and is in context of the personal life section regarding his use of social media. Bobbysue097 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobbysue097 and welcome to Wikipedia! That information is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. I will not revert you again, but I don't think the text follows WP:BLP. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the text would be added, but I think that the quote is confusing and it could simply be summarized as something like "In March 2024, Bonamassa started to use Instagram again." Still, though, I don't think that it's notable information about him. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the insta source doesn't actually state what your using it to state. where in that source is the claim that it's a 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Bobbysue097, per this comment you made 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Bobbysue097!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit

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)[reply]

recent edit

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)[reply]

March 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 adding the following text below this notice: {{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.

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.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]