User talk:Metrolink123

Manchester

Your content that you have repeatedly added to Manchester and that has subsequently been reverted by myself and at least one other editor, is against Wikipedia policy, as I explained in my edit summary here.
Also, telling another editor to go fix some other article "I notice you have not deleted the same phrase from the Birmingham article. Before taking unilateral action, please consult the talk page. Thanks." doesn't help your cause. It might be helpful for you to take a look at the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the subsection WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are the editor who has been reverted more than once and are editing against Wikipedia guidelines, you are the person in this exchange who actually should be taking this issue to the article's talk page, but since you have refused to do so I have. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hi Metrolink123! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Manchester 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:Manchester, 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry:, he threatened to report me for "vandalism". As if he is aware how that part works. He might carry on his edit warring. DragonofBatley (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Manchester. 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Reporting me for vandalism doesn't work. It's you who is and btw it wasn't me who reverted you. So take it to the report page for someone else then. Cheers DragonofBatley (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Metrolink123 and Manchester. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Manchester) for attempting to sneak disputed changes into an article with a misleading edit summary.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can still edit the article's talk page - if a consensus emerges to include the claim, someone else can add it. Once you've demonstrated that you can edit collaboratively, you can request an unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Swissair123 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swissair123. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]