User talk:Borsycle1

February 2022
Hello, I'm Rusalkii. I noticed that you recently removed content from Julianna Guill 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. Rusalkii (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Julianna Guill. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Julianna Guill was changed by Borsycle1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.947792 on 2022-02-18T20:39:01+00:00

How is my edit unconstructive?

Borsycle1

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Julianna Guill, you may be blocked from editing. ''Unless you can actually confirm with a reliable source that Guill had a sex scene, please do not add that information. Thank you.'' — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi 3PPYB6 Could you explain further how the edit is disruptive?

Thank you Borsycle1


 * @Borsycle1 — There is no reliable source to back up the claim on the fact that Julianna Guill had a sex scene. For more, see this. Again, if you find a source to back up the claim, by all means add it back. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 20:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick search will show you that there is such a scene in the movie. I can look for asource, but the scene does obviously exist.

Borsycle1

@Borsycle1 — Ah, now I see. Even so, that kind of content is slightly irrelevant and would likely be reverted as a good-faith edit. But, thanks for letting me know! The above warning will be redacted. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you I would say that it is quite relevant, but if someone does not believe so they can surely explain to me why.

Borsycle1

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Julianna Guill. ''This looks like your last chance to walk back from the edge. You are edit warring in support of a WP:BLP violation. This will not end well for you if you continue.'' --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary. I removed the word "best" for a reason.

Borsycle1

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Julianna Guill. 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:24, 20 February 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.

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. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Borsycle1. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what sockpuppetry is. Why am I being blocked?

Borsycle1
 * You can request an unblock per the instructions above, but you cannot request a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

{SPI case status|CUdecline}
 * This is not a sockpuppet investigation. --Yamla (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)