User talk:Bebitofiu

April 2023
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Naya Rivera, you may be blocked from editing. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Who are you? Also, I just edited for good, there are many errors in the description of that article. Bebitofiu (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am a pending changes reviewer, I get notified when inexperienced users want to make changes to certain protected articles. You do not edit "for good": there's more errors in your single-line comment here than in that whole article. Your edits to that article 1. squish together two paragraphs into a long one, chop short ones into shorter pieces. It's poor writing and poor structure. 2. Remove any sense of description of the subject, instead transforming the lead to a run-on prose filmography. 3. Does not introduce the subject before jumping in. 4. Introduces dismissive tone. If you can't recognise all of this - or, at least, can't recognise why all of this is bad for an article (especially the lead, a "snapshot" and often the only thing someone reads) - then you shouldn't be editing.
 * I would suggest you get some experience before making large changes to article leads anyway. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are not doing your job well. Because you don't specify what it's supposed to be. The paragraphs are fine as they are, and there are no spelling errors. Stop manipulating readers. Bebitofiu (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't specify what? No spelling errors =/= good writing. Wonderful, you're adding uncivil at someone trying to help to your laundry list of Wikipedia sins. Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will create a video to report you for false information anyway. It is noted that there is no neutral point of view here, and you only edit for your convenience. Bebitofiu (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It took you less than half an hour to decide to publicly slander someone who prompted you to explain your edits, explained where you're going wrong with editing, and recommended you not break all the main Wikipedia rules? There is clearly something going on with you, and WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Best of luck to you finding peace in your life. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's alright Karen. Go back to twitter, that's where you do best making yourself the owner of morality. Pathetic. Bebitofiu (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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; 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.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.


 * It is believed you have edited logged-out as in order to avoid scrutiny. This is considered Sockpuppetry, an act that can result in permanent banning of all and future accounts.

It's clear your level of English leaves something to be desired if you seem to think that saying "I justify my actions" is actually doing so; if nothing else, your understanding of how to write an article lede is substandard. You can discuss editing practices, you can stick around and observe others to learn, or you can continue to use abusive editing practices and find yourself blocked, your choice. Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Naya Rivera in this edit reason. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ZsinjTalk 00:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ZsinjTalk 00:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)