User talk:1Trevorr

Urdu
Hi. In Urdu and Urdu alphabet, the native name was already right there, immediately in front of where you added it, so I removed your addition. Largoplazo (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
Hi. You have repeatedly sought to change the short description for the Jehovah's Witnesses article, without engaging with other editors regarding the fact that the change was reverted. Your recent edit at Book of Mormon suggests you have a personal conflict of interest regarding the subject matter that does not reflect a neutral point of view, and it would be best if you left the editorial decision in this instance to other editors. However, please feel free to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello, I'm Eyer. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Nancy Pelosi, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 02:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing quoted matter
Please do not edit quoted matter. Neutralitytalk 00:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Nastaliq
Hello @1Trevorr, you seem to be removing several uses of Nastaliq in Afghanistan articles. What's your reasoning for doing so? — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 18:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Danre98, the reason is because Nastaliq appears to only be used for Urdu. The Pashto and Persian Wikipedia pages are not in Nastaliq, and it's harder to read. 1Trevorr (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you also removed the Nastaliq font for Punjabi. See, it's not just Urdu that primarily uses Nastaliq. Punjabi, Hindko, Saraiki, Kashmiri, Balti, Burushaski and Shina also use Nastaliq as their primary script. Languages such as Persian (including Dari and older varieties of Tajiki), Ottoman Turkish, Iranian Azerbaijani, Balochi, Afghan Uzbek, Luri, Chagatai, Qashqai, Mazanderani and Gilaki also use Nastaliq, but less frequently. Infact, the only Arabic-script based languages that usually never use it are Arabic, Pashto, Uyghur, Sindhi, and some other African languages written in Arabic script. Make sure you don't remove the Nastaliq font in languages that are known to always use it. ThatDohDude (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@ThatDohDude Ok my bad, sorry 1Trevorr (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

July 2022
Your recent editing history at Kyle Rittenhouse 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you give this warning to the other person too? 1Trevorr (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Leo Frank
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Leo Frank, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.
 * Please do not remove sourced information from articles without a consensus. Continuing to do so may lead to being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Your recent editing history at Leo Frank 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is wholly unacceptable behavior.   Acroterion   (talk)   16:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And had I seen this I would have probably blocked indefinitely.   Acroterion   (talk)   22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have extended the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Leo Frank
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The two other editors are claiming that changes you and I objected to don't count when making consensus because they blocked you. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

They're dishonest. I'll take a look at it later. 1Trevorr (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)