User talk:69.117.93.145

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, at 69.117.93.145, has made edits to Michele Evans that do not conform to our policies and guidelines and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider [ getting a username] to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:
 * Help contents – the main help page.
 * Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 05:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello, I'm Callitropsis. 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 Michele Evans 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. Please also read Biographies of living persons and Overquoting. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 05:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A few other notes: Several of the sources you cited were court records and gossip sites. These sources are not acceptable for contentious claims about living people, so I have removed them and the material sourced to them. You have also made three reverts in the past twenty-four hours, which puts you close to breaching the three-revert rule and at risk of being blocked for edit warring. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 05:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Michele Evans. 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: 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. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 06:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * The talk page was used to flush out concerns. It took awhile for me to get actual concerns out of the user but I addressed his concerns and made appropriate edits.  Vandalism and deleting mass amounts of content you don't like is also not allowed on Wikipedia.  I was not engaged in a edit war as I was providing valuable information that was being deleted incorrectly. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's good that you're discussing your edits on the talk page, but that should be your first step before reverting. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your proposed content is suitable, and so far you have not done so. Your quotes of Evans' works are very long and could be considered copyright violations, and the sources you have cited are not reliable and many of them are primary&mdash;that is, they're closely connected to the subject.I understand that having your edits reverted can be frustrating and Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, which is why I'm encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message I left you rather than simply continuing to revert. As a final note, Nikkimaria's edits were not vandalism. Vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia and refers only to deliberate, bad-faith attempts to compromise the usefulness of Wikipedia. Nikkimaria's edits were made in good faith (and were improvements in my opinion), and weren't vandalism. Accusing other editors of vandalism is often considered a personal attack and may result in being blocked from editing. To be blunt, you will most likely be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks if you don't promptly self-revert this edit and retract your accusations of vandalism. I'm about to go to bed, but I'd happy to answer any questions you might have and I should be able to get back to you no later than tomorrow evening. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 07:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are so missing the point. Vandalism is not ok.  Anyone is free to edit but to completely remove almost the entirety of the article is vandalism.  It is not an attack but rather a fact.  Nobody wants to revert anything on my end however my had was forced at the gross vandalism.  Blockquotes were used on my end and when it was pointed out to me that this resource, blockquote, is not acceptable, I made appropriate original summaries of said books and made updates.  The sources I cited are extremely reliable and your claiming they are not is an indication of your ignorance in the matter. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I incorrectly assumed that the summaries that you wrote were quotes because their tone was promotional. They were non-neutral and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, but they were not copyright violations and I should have checked more closely. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 22:34, 10 January 2024 (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. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 07:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your connection to Michele Evans
Do you have a personal or professional connection to Michele Evans? If so, please review Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and make the appropriate disclosures on Talk:Michele Evans. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michele Evans
As I write this, you have made 23 edits to Articles for deletion/Michele Evans, which is more than the next four biggest contributors combined, and are responsible for 49% of the text on that page. Much of that is you repeating the same arguments over and over. This is not a good use of anyone's time, and is not helping you to prevent the article from being deleted; I suggest you take a step back from it and read WP:BLUDGEON. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 (continued)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans, you may be blocked from editing. ''This edit is inappropriate. It displays a lack of good faith (WP:AGF is a Wikipedia behavior guideline, and you have already been blocked once for, among other problems, "battleground mentality and failure to assume good faith)"). And it appeals to emotion rather than content policy policy (you have already been warned about WP:BLUDGEON and wasting others' time with irrelevant comments). Please stop disrupting the discussion. If you continue, you will be blocked again, and will not have any further opportunity to contribute there at all.'' DMacks (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not wasting anybody's time. I am constructively editing the article and have been assailed for doing so.  If anything I am the one whose time is being wasted by biased deletions of my verified factual writing.  I am researching.  My additions are made based on factual findings.  Your attempt to censor my ability to reply to these actors is interesting. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You will note I made no comment about your article contributions, the sources you use, or the article topic itself. DMacks (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How bout you use your energy for good? Enhance the article perhaps! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no knowlege of the topic. I am an uninvolved admin, seeking to keep the discussion on track. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's difficult people keep deleting verified sources I have provided because it harms the ability for an informed decision to be made. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you are only interested in promoting a non-notable author. Your goal seems to be to list and discuss said author. You are not here to write an encyclopedia so I recommend you find a different website for your advertising.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wondered what was up with 69.117. PROMO had not crossed my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)