User talk:50.27.1.50

December 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kid Pix has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kid Pix was changed by 50.27.1.50 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95839 on 2016-12-18T06:53:08+00:00.

Edit comments
Hi, I see you have made several changes to The Silmarillion, all of which have been reverted, some as definitely unhelpful, and all without edit comments. This last is itself unhelpful, as other editors have to examine your changes to see whether they were constructive. It would be greatly appreciated if you could state briefly for each edit in the "Edit summary" box what you have done and why. Most changes need to be supported by a reliable source, too (see (WP:CITE). Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Silmarillion. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Hi, I'm very disappointed by your resort to edit-warring. I have explained above that edit comments are required, and I reverted your edit explaining that the text was correct before your edit. I still think so. If you disagree, which is your right, then the correct recourse is not to begin an edit-war but to discuss on the talk page the reasons (if any) that support your point of view, citing reliable sources as necessary, and going with the consensus either way. In this case, the cited sources clearly indicate that the book received a very poor, even hostile response on publication, and it has taken time for its merits to be appreciated. You cannot change that by diving in without consensus and changing a word here and there: we are driven by reliably-cited evidence. I do hope this is clear. Many thanks for your co-operation, and I look forward to talking to you on the matter if that is what you wish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you are still trying, in a small way; that's slightly less wrong, and given that it's basically a reversion to the status quo not actionable, but you still aren't providing an edit comment as requested in detail and very politely above, or discussing in any way. Allowing this edit does not mean that you are excused from commenting your edits in general, nor from citing reliable sources, in general. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)