User talk:PD Rivers

March 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Funk rock, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Funk rock. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Stop it or you're going to get yourself blocked. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Doubleday myth into History of baseball. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at as an example of how it is done. Copying without doing this is a violation of our licensing terms. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Anfield
Howdy hello! I see you are working to protect the Anfield page, which is appreciated. However, be careful not to violate WP:3RR in the process, or you will probably get blocked, which won't be very fun. Other folks can help to undo the vandalism for you, and if the IP keeps it up they will get blocked. Hopefully the IP will see some sense however and talk it out, although I rather doubt it. Happy editing! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Shield
Please message me here or on the relevant page's talk page if you want to discuss it further so we are not edit warring. I reverted you recent edit as it made no sense to include since the notion of some seeing the CS as a glorified friendly is already referenced with three different sources further up in the article that all say what your article was saying. It makes no sense to add a fourth statement and source of the same notion elsewhere in the section and three sources is more than enough to cover it. Davefelmer (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Bowie
Hey, I asked a question on the Bowie talk page, I'd appreciate your input. -SouthofHeaven1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Kitchiner
Hi, I'm interested in your reasons for removing Kitchiner's biographical details, books, and clarification on his status as a celeb. I've edited it using the ODNB, which is about as reliable a source as can be, and been careful to leave in the basic facts on the crips debate so that readers can make up their own minds. You keep citing debatable sources (the daily telegraph) - and I'm intrigued as to your rationale. HAve you followed the sources I cite and read them? You cannot claim replacing cabinet of taste with magazine as per the original text is a personal opinion, dude! Randombint (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you kindly respond please - you are currently risking an edit war, which I am not prepared to get into, and I would very much like to discuss your reversions which are removing solid information. WIkipedia Guidelines clearly state that revision is preferred to reversion, and you seem to be strongly in violation of this. Randombint (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RE: your edit summary on Kate Beckinsale
Your edit :
 * 1) Don't ask for article protection in edit summaries. Requests for article protection are made at WP:RFP
 * 2) The edits in question do not appear to be vandalism. Overlinking and adding "British" to "English are redundant and a bit disruptive but arguably good faith.
 * 3) Even if this were vandalism the first thing to try would be blocking the editor in question rather than protecting the article, particularly since this is a long-term named account. A semi protection would do nothing, so what you are suggesting is a full protection against anyone but admins. Vandalism blocks are requested at WP:AIV, but certainly the last edits do not justify this. I have not looked a the previous edits.
 * If, as you claim, "This same editor has been vandalising this article for months (if not years)" then the place to discuss such long-term disruption is WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cliffhanger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plot. 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) 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

BBC: Edit warring
In the spirit WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, request you to please engage in a discussion here rather than WP:EW and WP:REVTALK. --King Zebu (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LDN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history 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.
 * You can't just try to shut down the discussion at London because you don't agree with it. You have given your opinion, now let other editors give theirs. Vpab15 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Stop deleting sourced material! The topic of the H.G. wells page is H.G. Wells, it is all about him, and one of the things that makes him great was the large number of motion pictures made based on his work. The film list belongs all in one place for easy access, not spread out over 50 different articles. If you persist in deleting sourced information, I will have to report you for Edit Warring, which I see is something you've been repeatedly accused of already. You're going to end up getting blocked. I see you have numerous warnings on your page already.

Stop deleting sourced material - Vandalism
The topic of the H.G. wells page is H.G. Wells, it is all about him, and one of the things that makes him great was the large number of motion pictures made based on his work. The film list belongs all in one place for easy access, not spread out over 50 different articles. If you persist in deleting sourced information, I will have to report you for Edit Warring, which I see is something you've been repeatedly accused of already. You're going to end up getting blocked. I see you have numerous warnings on your page already. HerbLightman (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)