User talk:A15730

February 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Taíno have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2022 (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: Taíno was changed by A15730 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955834 on 2022-02-27T13:31:22+00:00

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Taíno, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You added material that is not in the cited source. Quotations must always be fully cited to reliable sources.'' Donald Albury 22:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be aware of WP:BRD, relating to common practice surrounding changes to stable articles. CMD (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2022 (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.


 * Not trying to be rude, but same to you. I'm the one making the initial edit, opening the talk section on it, and requesting we adjust the article to meet Wikipedia criteria, and YOU appear to be the one simply making reverts while not making any suggestions.  Do you think that article is somehow perfect and can't be changed?  I don't think that it is.  So, please read the above and try to be constructive.  Best regards. A15730 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Tag removal
Just to let you know that an editor has been warned by an admin for removing the tag, so please don't do that again. You're more than welcome to join the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Christopher Columbus. 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. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 27 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.


 * No, I think we typed over each other. As explained, the second undo wasn't to remove your tag again but to restore the other information which you deleted.  Thank you for putting it back. A15730 (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, your edit summary makes it clear that the tag was removed intentionally. Besides, what's the point of adding a source to a word whose very meaning is being disputed? M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My intent was to get back the citation which you removed without cause. They were bundled together.  My edit summary does make that clear.  Thank you for putting the link so anyone reading this can check. A15730 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There was cause for the removal of a cherry picked source (with conflicting information) that you added to a word whose definition is disputed. I suggest you self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)