User talk:Bobby690

Welcome!
 Hello, Bobby690, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Bobby690, good luck, and have fun. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 6teen have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2021 (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: 6teen was changed by Bobby690 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.857298 on 2021-05-14T06:19:10+00:00

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cr1TiKaL, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Laplorfill (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's not his alias like the note says he is widely also known as penguinz0, which is what the section is for 'Also known as' Bobby690 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what the note says "Although the name of White's YouTube channel is penguinz0, it is not his alias." It does not say he is widely known as penguinz0. It says it is not his alias. The pseudonym field in the template is for an alternative name of the person, not for their YouTube channel name. Please stop adding this incorrect information to the template. Laplorfill (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that. But a simple google trend search should tell you that more people google penguinz0 than Cr1TiKaL and he is also known as penguinz0 Bobby690 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A google search is not a reliable source. You need to cite a reliable source that sats he is known as penguinz0. Laplorfill (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the other names have any citations so I don't understand why this one needs to. Especially since his most known name is without a doubt penguinz0. Bobby690 (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other names are properly sourced. Go read the "Face reveal and content change (2015–2017)" section of the article and note the sources. There are none for penguinz0. Please read, and follow, WP:V. Laplorfill (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This is why i referenced the note earlier as it clearly states that even though it's not his alias it's his channel name. This is just the same as 'big moist' being his snapchat name in "Face reveal and content change (2015–2017)" Bobby690 (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cr1TiKaL 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. Laplorfill (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (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. Laplorfill (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note the warning I left you at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Cr1TiKaL. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Cr1TiKaL. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop
This is the only time I will warn you; stop making edits to articles without providing a proving source, as you did at Cr1TiKaL. Please read the talk page of the article before making any more edits after your one-week block. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby690. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)