User talk:Bellapoo

November 2021
Hello, I'm Blaze The Wolf. I noticed that you recently removed content from Natasha Bertrand 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.   ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Natasha Bertrand, you may be blocked from editing. Equine-man (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Natasha Bertrand.   ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Natasha Bertrand 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. Isabelle 🔔 18:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to inappropriate trout
Hello, I just thought I'd let you know that no one owns any page on Wikipedia and I've removed your trout from my userpage as what you used the Trout for is not appropriate for what you're addressing. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Natasha Bertrand. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)