User talk:CentralTime301/Archives/2019/November

Reverting Good Edits
Why are you erasing my edits saying that they are not constructive? so a convicted drug dealer that has done a lot of harm to a nation doesn't deserve to be described as a drugdealer in Wikipedia? why chapo guzman does have his profile as a drug lord? why tony hernandez can't be there? is JJ Rendon paying you? are you part of this drug organization? Please let us Hondurans express our reality. Hope this message is constructive to you

Why are you reverting good edits?? Sorry if putting facts about a TV station is contrary to Wikipedia’s mission.

Reply: You are disruptive editing KSPX-TV. Its actually redundant. CentralTime301 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

KTTV edit war
Hi CentralTime301, while I believe you are correct in reverting Theteeveeman's edits, please keep in mind the three-revert rule. They have already been reported for edit warring and I suggest you stop reverting their edit until admins deal with the issue. Hintswen  Talk |  Contribs   19:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Signature violates WP:SIGLINK
Hi CentralTime301. Your Signature is in violation of WP:SIGLINK, please ensure you correct this ASAP. Hintswen  Talk |  Contribs   20:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi CentralTime301, Please re-read the link I posted earlier as your signature still has not been fixed, specifically I was pointing out the folowing:
 * "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log."
 * However it is also recommended your signature includes your username as it is much easier for editors that way.  Hintswen   Talk |  Contribs   20:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal?
Firstly, don't template the regulars.

Also secondly, all of that is unsourced statements, original research, and trivia. This is a major issue in this realm of articles, and considering the removal of unsourced information to be disruptive is just disruptive in its own right. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve KTLO-LP
Hello, CentralTime301,

Thank you for creating KTLO-LP.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

LX (TV network) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, LX (TV network), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Viacom/CBS merger mentions
I've reverted these again; for all intents and purposes until a merger structure is announced and for film/TV-specific divisions, there's no need for the line at all and it just adds needless work and edits overall. Nickelodeon Digital and Movies have no reason to need mention involving the merger, nor does CBSSN, because they're away from the major divisions of the company.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Its because Viacom and CBS Corporation will merge, but what if Viacom will retain Nickelodeon Movies and Digital? Main CentralTime301 page and  talk  21:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no point to mention a merger at this point, period. A simple switch at the time of closure to the new company name is good enough.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

KFXF-LD
I have again re-reverted your edit; MyNet airs at 3am to a crowd of barely a hundred. Gray has no branding with MyNet on this station to speak of, and is clearly highlighting MeTV much more than they will a service that's airing at 3am. To edit here, you must have some common sense, and if you talked to the station's management, they would consider themselves a primary affiliate of MeTV. Further reversions of this will result in some kind of report.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 15:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited KYTV (TV), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/KYTV_%28TV%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/KYTV_%28TV%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments
There are very few circumstances where it is proper for you to delete the talk page comments of another editor. And you seem to have done just that, without any reason, let alone a proper reason. Please be careful. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I rollbacked it by accident.  CentralTime 301  ( talk , contribs) 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you don't know what you are doing, like here, you should ask questions on the talk page without taking action that violates wp rules.2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, leave edits from this academic editor in place
I am a regular, long-experienced academic editor that has been working here for over a decade. The edits I have made today, over several hours, at the Kane medical history article have been careful, and extend edits done over the course of several weeks. Moreover, they are fully in keeping with all applicable WP policies and guidelines. Hence I am reverting your unexplained edits that destroyed many constructive, source-adding, source-verifying, and corrective edits. (By corrective I mean, edits made necessary by checking article text to appearing sources.) Please reply here with the issues you see, before reverting again. I have no intention for an edit war, and we can involve an admin if we must. But my editing is clearly not vandalism—review it carefully—and any bias against unlogged editing is disallowed by WP policy. Cheers. A former prof. 2601:246:C700:9B0:6D4C:597C:72AB:665E (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please make an account for yourself instead of being an IP address.  CentralTime 301  ( talk , contribs) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have had an account in the past, for many years, and my reasons for editing a I do are my own. Speak with an administrator—since its founding, Wikipedia has allowed unlogged editing. What I am doing is formally and completely permissiable. Prejudice or bias on the other hand, without consideration of the quality of the edits in question—that is not permitted at Wikipedia. See WP:AGF and other relevant policies. 2601:246:C700:9B0:6D4C:597C:72AB:665E (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you need to remember IPs are human too. They don't have to create accounts to edit here and I think you need to pay more attention to their edits than just automatically reverting them, like you did here as well. NZFC  (talk) (cont)  21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is the kind of attitude that drives away new users. If it were required to have an account, IPs wouldn't be able to edit. That should be self-evident. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on WJCT (TV); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
 * 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.

October 2019
Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WABG-TV, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WBKB-TV
Restored, as previous reversion was from an IP sock who is now on a six month block and presented no proof.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't keep vandal reversions. Simple.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello CentralTime301! I removed a small bit of content from your user page, you didn't do anything "wrong", but we have certain guidelines that are mostly for your benefit. To learn more, please see this page that you may find helpful. I hope you are liking Wikipedia and will stick around and help out! Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 17:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, there was one additional update for the same reason - you don't have to do anything about it, just letting you know. Best regards, —  xaosflux  Talk 17:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No test
Hello, you reverted my edits saying it might be a test but it was not. Could you tell me what i did wrong to be deleted? Thanks!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.27.53 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

W47CK
Please see the talk page for W47CK for rationale about why text is in the present tense. Thanks! Stereorock (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Rogers
Please see question by reverted COI IP at WP:TEA. (Wrong venue for the question; I’d consider replying at Talk:Jim Rogers and leaving a Moved discussion template.) Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Your AfDs
Please stop nominating obviously notable stations which have past history and justify their articles. This is a waste of time and resources for those who have to defend nomination of these TV station articles; at worst, we are not going to delete an American television station article, ever, and unless it's completely promotional, it will be kept or redirect per past AfD outcomes.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is your final warning on frivolous AfD nominations. Please find something better to do here than advancing nominations which will be kept per past consensus.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because your nominations are a waste of time. I've pointed you to a number of guidelines regarding nominations; please read them immediately. To put it another way; the community loses trust in those who push a number of 'obvious keep' AfDs.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Article tagging
I noticed that tags you applied to Andy Gillion. Please see WP:OVERTAGGING. MB 04:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Requests for page-protection
Coming back to my message from september 4th this year, again, please read our protection policy, and act accordingly. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Before you request protection again, please first have a look at the article. We never protect because of one user; blocking is easier there. Go easy on the requests for protection, lest they become disruptive. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage
Good afternoon,

nope, my last edit was not a mistake. I am entitled to remove messages from my talk page. With all due respect, this is getting a bit tiresome. Especially since i came to you regarding the Sandro Mendes article and did not receive one single word in reply.

Attentively --81.193.141.118 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess this other message is overdue: maybe you were a little thrown off when you saw my pinging of you with an account instead of the IP. Yes I do have an account (this one, of course), but was reduced to IP editing due to vicious stalking. Now, it seems the stalker has either left WP or quit their approach (I have been feeling like it for some time now, just would not take any chances), so from now on i'll only edit with the account to avoid such pressure/misunderstandings from you (or any other editor) in the future.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Mario topicon
Given your edit warring there with a bot, I've decided that File:Mario emblem.svg should be used. ミラP 00:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Mercy McAuley High School
Please don't revert edits that were properly explained without giving a proper explanation. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-free content use
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically Template:Bowser topicon, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi CenralTime301. Non-free content cannot be used in templates and it cannot be used on user pages per non-free content use criterion #9 and also per Wikipedia:User pages. It's OK if you didn't know this and just made a mistake, but please don't add or re-add any more non-free files to any template pages or to you user page now that you do. Not only will they keep being removed by bots or other editors, but eventually an administrator will be asked to intervene and take whatever action is necessary to stop you from doing so. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask them below or at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:S (Shrek) logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:S (Shrek) logo.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Why are you quitting Wikipedia? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, its because CentralTime301 is changing to a new account which is Spicyeater2005 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Jigureasa (Strei)
Hi, I wonder why you left a message on my talk page after I blanked and redirected Jigureasa (Strei). As I mentioned in the edit summary, this river is not notable. See WP:GEOLAND for more information. Markussep Talk 13:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative account
CentralTime301, you created on November 12 and declared it as an alternative account of your main account on the Spicyeater2005 userpage, although not on the CentralTime301 userpage. At the same time, you have stated that you are retiring your CentralTime301 account. Yet, you continue to edit with the CentralTime301 account and edit with the new account. Can you please explain what you are doing? The general rule is that editors are allowed only one account unless there is a legitimate purpose for creating a second account.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You said the following on my Talk page: "You explained to me saying that I had made a new account, Spicyeater 2005, as an alternate account of mine and that I was retiring my current account. But that plan failed. So I decided to go" Let's keep this dialog in one place (here). I don't know what you mean by "So I decided to go".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * CentralTime301, if you do not answer my questions satisfactorily, I will block your second account, Spicyeater2005.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Spicyeater2005.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take Bbb23's warning seriously; your use of multiple accounts and false retirements is as concerning to the community as I was about your AfD nominations.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate username warning
Please review the username policy before warning any other editors about their username. Your message to Apples&Manzanas was clearly inappropriate. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain this?
CentralTime301, could you explain this edit, please? --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologise if my question was unclear. I don't understand your edit so I asked for an explanation of why you made it. The IP added correct (and crucial!) information which you removed again. Why? (As I said on my talk page, please post here and not on my user talk page. Thanks!) --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
The report you filed at WP:ANEW (see here) was an abuse of process. You provided no diffs and omitted several other fields as well, and your comment made it sound like you were reporting edit-warring from almost two years ago. If you disrupt noticeboards in the future, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A friendly piece of advice
Hi - I expect that you've been directed to WP:DTTR before, but I'm giving it to you again, and suggesting that you read it. I see that you reverted your recent template on RHaworth's talk page, which is good, but seriously - you decided to give a blanking warning to an administrator when they set up a redirect? If you want to know why he did that, why not just ask him - it's pretty obvious he's not a random newb who doesn't know what he's doing. Please be more careful with warning templates - they're useful, but only up to a point. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CentralTime301 edits may need a closer review. The discussion is about the topic Topic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't
Regarding your noted intention here, are you intending to notify all editors who have edits disallowed by the abuse filter? I can see many instances wherein that would not be a good idea. I also don't think you yet have the required competency in reviewing edits for you to discern when such a notice would be appropriate. Please consider other ways in which you can help improve this encyclopedia. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Quranism
Hi CentralTime301, just wanted to say thanks for undoing the vandalism on the Quranism page yesterday. I keep adding beneficial information about Quranists in Algeria but some vandalist who has an agenda keeps deleting it! I will keep working to undo his nonsense!

Quranism edit
Hi User talk:CentralTime301, my edit was explained on the Quranism talk page and in a previous edit summary. This particular editor's account has been blocked indefinitely and his sockpuppet IP has blocked numerous times for making disruptive edits to the Quranism article. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:FD7C:58D:B19E:4157 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see evidence of the block, but the addition is controversial enough that I've rolled back to the status quo version from 4 November. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The evidence for the indefinite block is on the talk page of his old account Quranism (talk • contribs). And the evidence of his attempt to get around the indefinite block, and his numerous blocks since then, is on the talk page of his current sockpuppet IP 194.61.223.68. In the past, the sockpuppet IP 194.61.223.68 and the Quranism (talk • contribs) account even made the exact same edit to the Quranism article (here and here). Anyway, the reason I reverted part of his recent edit was because it based its information about the beliefs and practices of Quranists in Algeria entirely on a hostile religious rival. Namely, the Sunni religious leader Abdelkarim Rakik. It's akin to basing your information about the beliefs and practices of progressive American Christians on what Jerry Fallwell Jr. says. :-) In addition, he added a bunch of trivial information that interested readers could learn by simply reading the source he cited. I'm not sure why User talk:CentralTime301 thinks the information in his edit is "true". 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:6443:2589:61AF:AAC9 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Trouted

 * You are the one that should be trouted. I have not agreed to be trouted. Do not post on my talk page again. Spshu (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat diff?
Please provide the diff that led to this warning where you allege made a legal threat or other threat of off-wiki action, since I don't see where the user did anything of that nature. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Quit with the templates
I think you should take some time and try your hardest to avoid using the templates available in Twinkle for a while. reflects very badly on you, and veers into WP:ASPERSIONS territory. I would be very careful if I were in your position. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 00:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Spshu has not [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CentralTime301&diff=prev&oldid=927010058] posted to your talk page since you opened that silly ANI thread. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=927011579]. I'm fairly sure no one in that discussion, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that was closed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=927023248&oldid=927020809] before you left the above message [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spshu&diff=927036728&oldid=927014566], was suggesting you leave another silly template. I suggest then that you take your own advice and "moderate yourself so as not to offend" (or really just waste everyone's time) and instead strive to to make sure we have "an inclusive atmosphere" before you're blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. In other words, start discussing article content and stop leaving templates over silly disputes over trouts. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be more direct than . I suggested that Spshu avoid your user talk page until things cool down. Do not leave messages at Spshu's user talk page: based on your prior templated messages and the two noticeboard reports you opened, any further messages (especially templated ones) start to get into the territory of aspersion and harassment. You have called attention to yourself with those reports, so do not be surprised that your conduct will be under scrutiny.
 * That being said, if you would like to discuss policy- and MOS-related concerns about the TV station article in question, you may do so at Talk:WLNS-TV. In fact, I encourage you to do so, but make sure that the discussion is about the content and not the contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you take Alfie's advice. No more templates to anyone's talk page, point blank. This seems a particularly poor use of a template [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mvcg66b3r&diff=prev&oldid=927125766] as the editor's recent changes to the article in question are reverting a date formatting and wikilink change [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WGTV&diff=926302127&oldid=926272116], rewording of some details [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WGTV&diff=926677504&oldid=926654831] and then mostly recently and I'm guessing the reason you left the template, reverting a wording change by you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WGTV&diff=927125665&oldid=927119986]. There was nothing there which could the addition of content without a citation. While me and C.Fred concentrated on your actions on Spshu's talk page, this doesn't mean it's acceptable to leave unfounded templates on other editor's talk pages. You're clearly having major problems understanding the correct usage of templates messages, or are just plain misusing them in revenge. Either way, it's not appropriate and needs to stop. You're already on very thing ice, don't push it further. If you really need to talk to someone directly, try composing a message. While templates are useful in some cases, in this case composing a message will require you to actually think about why you're writing to them, and what it is you feel is a problem. Note that it is not necessary to complain every time someone makes an edit you disagree with. Often it is far, far better to simply open an article talk page discussion where you focus exclusively on the article content, and not on any disagreements with what an editor did. Maybe take a read of Talk page guidelines if you haven't done so yet. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * CentralTime301 - multiple more experienced editors have now asked you to cut it out. The fact that you're refusing to engage with us whilst continuing exactly the behaviour you've been asked to refrain from does not reflect well on you at all. You're really weighing on a lot of people's patience right now. I will not take you to ANI, but that is where you're headed - other editors may not be as forgiving. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 16:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Quranism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 16:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at WLNS-TV 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Your personal preference does not override TVS discussions and allow you to engage in an edit war. My edit summary direct you and other editors to where the matter was discussed. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Lebanon, Tennessee
I think you may have been misled by the Wiki markup. After your change, the text said "a MeTV-affiliated television station serving Nashville, Tennessee, United States that is licensed to Lebanon", without any explanation of the fact that Lebanon is a town in Tennessee; the info is in the Wikilink but that was hidden to the readers by the link piping. (Suppose there were a town in California called Canada. If a Wikipedia article said "X is a television station serving Los Angeles, California, United States that is licenced to Canada", would it not be reasonabl for the article's readers to assume that the country was intended? This is the exact same situation. A small minority of the potential readers are aware of the existence of Lebanon, Tennessee, so the obvious assumption is that it is the country that is referred to.) This is an extremely minor point which I'm certainly not going to edit war over, but please take a moment to consider what the purpose is of removing information that makes an article easier to understand for the readers. --bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Signature
Hello, sorry to be a burden but your current signature violates the guidelines and policies as seen in WP:SIG. Unnecessarily long signatures with a lot of markup makes pages harder to edit and is generally is frowned upon by other edits. As such, I urge you to streamline it, and also read SIG. Thanks. HurricaneGeek2002  talk  16:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * came here to say just this only to see you've already been told. Your signature is bordering on disruptive, please change it. See WP:SIGAPP. Praxidicae (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here to say this as well. I'd also note that the signature also has extremely poor color contrast. The links border on unreadable. More quantitatively, the contrast ratios for the link to your talk/contrib pages are 3.2:1 when visited and 1.8:1 when not visited. For reference, WP:SIGAPP requires a ratio of 4.5:1. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcoming new users
Stop welcoming users who have made no edits, e.g., .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked means no asking questions
If I am (currently) blocked, that means that I cannot ask a question at WP:TEA. Yes or no?  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 15:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. You are not permitted to edit until such a time your account is unblocked. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You can ask questions here, but they should ideally be relevant to your block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * However, you may be temporarily unable to edit this talk page. A number of IP editors were vandalizing the page today, so it has been protected. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the page is semi-protected, but CentralTime301 is extended-confirmed. They should still be able to appeal or comment on their own block. – bradv  🍁  01:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bradv I cannot do the appeal or Beeblebrox (the admin who blocked me for a year) will deny it.  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox will not review any appeal you make. Another administrator will.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 I still cannot try to do the block appeal or some admin will also deny it.  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 13:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then wait for your block to expire a year from now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you tried? They may unblock you or reduce your block length. Stereorock (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

But Stereorock I cannot make a new section on your talk page because of the one year block. No admin might unblock me or reduce the block length.  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 21:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What does creating a section at their talk page have to do with anything? —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The talking of making the new section on Stereorock's talk page is actually meaning the block I had, C.Fred.  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 23:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And why would you need to go to Stereorock's user talk page to discuss that? —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about that but I realized I was blocked, so I can't do that or any pages in Wikipedia, except my talk page.

And the "only edits" in the English Wikipedia are adding/or/editing edits in my talk page.  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 23:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. Though as you'll notice, there are editors who are willing to have conversations with you here, at least so long as the discussion relates to your block or to helping you understand Wikipedia policies and processes. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What did I do to unfortunately have this block? Did I do anything wrong that resulted in the block?  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 23:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote out the reasoning in the block notice, I'd suggest you read that carefully and then ask any questions you may have about those reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That will take a day or a week to review Wikipedia's policies. Beeblebrox, I will let you know when I read all of them.  CentralTime301  ( Talk, Contributions ) 23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted because of this! – Aνδρέας talk&#124;contributions 22:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for a general unwillingness or inability to learn how to make useful, positive contributions to Wikipedia. I've been watching this talk page for some time now, and it seems nearly every day a new issue with your editing comes to light. Multiple users have tried to be guide you but it seems it hasn't really helped much. You don't even seem to have understood how to use your own talk page despite other users trying to explain it to you, and this is certainly not a complicated issue. You are making some good edits but the error rate is simply unacceptably high. As a self-identified younger user this block is done in the hope that in the year of this block you may mature some and be more able to follow Wikipedia policies and practices properly once it has expired. 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:. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)