User talk:Bulsara413

November 2022
Hello, I'm Silikonz-alt. I noticed that in this edit to Exploitation film, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Silikonz (alt) 💬 16:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Exploitation film, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Leonidlednev (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2022 (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 Exploitation film. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Your recent editing history at Lady Gaga 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. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bulsara413! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Lady Gaga several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. ''Per WP:BRD, use the talk page when you’re reverted or at the very least, use an edit summary to explain why you reverted. Gaga's first (official/credited) role was in 2001 which means that’s when she began. Discuss it further here or at Talk:Lady Gaga] if you have strong reasons for 2007, but don’t blindly revert again.''. FrB.TG (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2022 (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 Frozen yogurt. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:07, 10 December 2022 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's quite obvious you disregarded the above warnings about edit warring and now there's a good chance you could get blocked for keeping it up. Please don't make any additional reverts without first discussing your desired changes, preferably on the article's talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you're currently active, would have time to resolve this report at 3RN. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ^^^^^ Maybe, thanx -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. 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) 02:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to my block for edit-warring, I've tagged the user as a suspected sock of .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 As info, confirmed during a sweep elsewhere. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)