User talk:Joa134

October 2019
Hello, I'm LuK3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dean Alford 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 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. --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Joa134, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Dean Alford, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! – Levivich 22:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * "Inaccurate" isn't really an explanation for removing content that is cited and accurately matches its source. Rather than removing factual, relevant information, it's better to improve the prose if it has some inaccuracies. I can see some problems with the content you removed, but I don't think it's right to remove all mention of those controversies altogether. I am restoring the article to an earlier version; if you think this is a mistake, please start a discussion at Talk:Dean Alford. Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia! Don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page if you have any questions. – Levivich 22:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 (2)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Dean Alford. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

''Please don't continue to remove sourced information from the article. Instead, propose your changes on the talk page, Talk:Dean Alford, and see if there is consensus for the changes before making the changes again. Thank you.'' – Levivich 23:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)