User talk:Miro101

April 2015
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ghosttown (Madonna song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 05:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Ghosttown (Madonna song), you may be blocked from editing.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 13:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Revising Flagrant Errors in Grammar is NOT disruptive editing.
My revisions do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "disruptive editing." I mainly revised flagrant grammatical errors in subject-verb agreement. For example "posters..is" should be "posters...are." I teach English for a living, and find such errors disruptive; they undermine the credibility of an otherwise strong entry. My slight additions (such as the parenthetical material about the tango) clarify and enhance the sentence. Aren't such revisions/additions (which are NOT based in "research") part of what makes Wikipedia great? Are you reverting only out of ego?

April 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ghosttown (Madonna song). — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ghosttown (Madonna song). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 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 lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)