User talk:Illusion87

Original research - Stan Kroenke
We seem to be on the verge of an edit war, so I'd love to talk with you about your contributions to this article on the Talk Page. Thanks! SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree


 * I'm afraid we're there again - let's talk about how best to improve the article and remove bias. Thanks!  SixFourThree (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

March 2016
Hello, I'm Marianna251. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stan Kroenke has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. Marianna251TALK 09:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Francis G. Slay. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Please explain how the edits were considered vandalism. They were simply facts that were sourced. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."


 * Regardless, your edits seem questionable and you certainly should not be repeatedly reverting other users without some attempt at dispute resolution. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Francis G. Slay. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2016 (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.

Final warning
Hello again Illusion87. This is a final warning. The next time you re-add the disputed content to Francis G. Slay you will be subject to an immediate block from further editing. As has been explained, you may not edit war to add content you think belong where multiple users have reverted you on the basis that the content is original research and a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Again, the issue is not whether you're right, but that you are edit warring to keep in content where consensus is thus far against you (though I don't think your edits, at least up to now, should have been labeled "vandalism", as above).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history at Stan Kroenke shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.  City O f  Silver  17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Stan Kroenke
You reverted a user to restore your edit. I reverted you. You reverting me at that point constitutes edit warring, which isn't allowed. It is absolutely your responsibility to start the discussion, especially since given your false implication that I called your edit "un-sourced facts," I don't know if it'll accomplish much. Discuss before reverting. Not while, not after. Before.  City O f  Silver  20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added a new comment on the talk page if you want to discuss further. Illusion87 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * National Football League controversies
 * added a link pointing to St. Louis County


 * Stan Kroenke
 * added a link pointing to St. Louis County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)