User talk:98.240.113.219

February 2024
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Longmont Potion Castle have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2024 (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: Longmont Potion Castle was changed by 98.240.113.219 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952743 on 2024-02-02T01:17:53+00:00


 * Ah, come on, holmes 98.240.113.219 (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Longmont Potion Castle. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Longmont Potion Castle. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, come on, then, O'Reilly, the jig's up, like 98.240.113.219 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. 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:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2024 (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.

July 2024
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions and for the consideration in leaving a pre-written message
 * I should like for you to tell me where I have added commentary, POV language, or personal analysis to any article
 * also for you to provide justifications for your reversions and removal of sourced content, and to improve my language, if you find it to be objectionable, to be tinted with opinion, etc., rather than removing sources and facts attributed to them 98.240.113.219 (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, it's a simple matter that you may not revert the article. You have broken WP:3RR, but since you weren't informed about it, I'm willing to overlook the violation before notice. Not that you're aware, you have to go to the article's talk page, discuss the changes, and wait to get consensus before making the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at New Albany, Mississippi 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. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 17 July 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. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing from certain pages (New Albany, Mississippi) for edit warring. 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:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * hello,
 * you've blocked me two minutes after i was warned, while i had no time to answer for myself at your administrators' noticeboard, and i don't take this guy's warning to have any authority, since he is following me around and acting without providing any justification, and he is not an administrator
 * also had no chance to reply to the comment of the above involved administrator
 * i think that my conduct has been quite reasonable and i should like the opportunity to defend myself before being blocked
 * 98.240.113.219 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your block only affects the article itself. It does not prevent you from discussing the edit at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice that, thank you 98.240.113.219 (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)