User talk:Cherry pizza

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Cherry pizza! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Edith Bliss - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Edith Bliss

The article Edith Bliss has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Unitasock (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Play Away have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Play Away, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

As I have explained in my edits (which I'll continue to make of you continue to undo them), 'programme' is not British English. Even the Oxford Dictionary favours 'program'. Cherry pizza (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• if you Cherry pizza (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The OED says "The forms programme and program have since become established as the standard British and U.S. spellings respectively, with the exception that program is usual everywhere in senses relating to computing". DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Claire Danes. 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. – ².O.^Boxing 09:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

A discussion concerning your edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• And linking from that discussion, I can confirm that saying "which I'll continue to make if you continue to undo them" is a very poor idea indeed, and if you do continue to make those edits, which are clearly incorrect, you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Your changes to Wheel of Fortune (Australian game show) have also been reverted; the show clearly uses "hostess" on-air. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: they've decided to continue their disruptive ways while logged out. 203.13.3.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is quite clearly them. – ².O.^Boxing 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ip blocked one week dtsruption -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A woman is an actress

This hasn't changed since the last time you tried to edit war the word "actor" into Claire Danes, and it won't change any time soon. Stop being disruptive. – ².O.^Boxing 08:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)