User talk:Lollller

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Charles II of England while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Charles II of England does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Eric ^talk 14:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lollller! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Charles II of England several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Charles II of England, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charles II of England. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eric ^talk 19:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lollller! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Elizabeth I several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Elizabeth I, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. DrKay (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Hi - look, your edit isn't wrong exactly, but it isn't improving the article. I started a thread on the talk page, which you may contribute to, and if you gain consensus then the change can be reinstated. If you reinstate it yourself without getting talk page consensus however, I will ask another administrator to block your account for edit warring (which I have already given you some advice about above). Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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.Girth Summit _(blether) 13:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Amanda Bynes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. READ MOS:ROLEBIO. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heathers (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Waters. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kim Walker (actress), 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. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Anne of Cleves, you may be blocked from editing. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles II of England. 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:

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. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, read MOS:ROLEBIO[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Winona Ryder. Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with bipolar disorder[edit]

I've reverted your edit because you can't use Wikipedia itself as a source. This is especially true when we are talking about claiming a living person has a mental illness. It looks like you have been warned ample times about poor sourcing in WP:BLP articles. You probably should consider this your last, last warning. Simply put, people that refuse to learn how to properly cite BLP articles are a net-negative to the project, and we are better off without them. So they get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent slow-motion edit warring, the addition of unsourced information despite multiple warnings, and a complete lack of communication with editors raising concerns. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Britney Spears. Continuing problems with WP:ROLEBIO. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is required to edit here. As you continue to make the same disputed edits with zero communication with other editors despite previous timed blocks, this block is indefinite. Once you make an unblock request that addresses the concerns raised an unblock can be considered.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]