User talk:2804:14D:CC81:4C2C:2D58:CDE9:E9C8:8DD3

August 2023
Hello, I'm SamX. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Dan Scanlon seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your removal of the paragraph was based on your own subjective opinion, which is not a reason to remove sourced encyclopedic content. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dan Scanlon 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. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read this message in its entirety before making another edit to Dan Scanlon: Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Dan Scanlon, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. In this case you're removing material based on your original research, but the same principles apply. Wikipedia reports what's in reliable sources. If reliable sources make an assertion, we write about it. You may find Verifiability, not truth helpful. You're also currently edit warring on that page, and continuing to do so is very likely to result in a block. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 19:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.