User talk:Meg. Innne

February 2021
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in David Bonnar. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at David Bonnar, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at David Bonnar.

Your recent editing history at David Bonnar 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bloom6132 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bishop" not "prelate" discussion
I have started a discussion on the article talk page. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in David Bonnar. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at David Bonnar, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your receiving "permission" from the subject of the article to use his preferred wording is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that covers standard wording, and this article (like all other articles) has to comply with it. I have already invited you back in February to discuss the issue at the article talk page, but your persistent reversions and refusal to even engage in any form of discussion is leading us nowhere. You've already been warned, and if you continue edit warring to impose an non-standard wording, you will be blocked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)