User talk:Applesandpumpkins

December 2020
Hello, I'm Train of Knowledge. I noticed that you recently removed content from West Roxbury without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 01:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at West Roxbury. 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. Donner60 (talk) 01:32, 10 December 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.


 * See What Wikipedia is not.


 * Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Introduction; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Referencing for beginners; Identifying reliable sources; Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Verifiability; No original research; Neutral point of view; Notability; Biographies of living persons; What Wikipedia is not; Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at West Roxbury, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: West Roxbury was changed by Applesandpumpkins (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.925447 on 2020-12-10T01:38:29+00:00 Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)