User talk:Parispv

July 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amber Riley, you may be blocked from editing. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit is correct. She is not an author, much less an activist. Parispv (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I expect she is since there are sourced statements in the article, though leads are discouraged from listing many occupations. But you know those are not the edits I'm referring to. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And what are those sources? Can you specify? She does not have any published books, nor does she participate in any benefit events. Parispv (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That, as I said, and as you very well know, is not the issue here. It may be what you want to make the issue out to be so you can pretend to other eyes that your main edits aren't targeted at misdirecting different actresses' perceived success. But if you want to see the sources, you are welcome to skim read the article you are insistent on removing sourced content from. Kingsif (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the entire article, and as I said, there is nowhere where it says that she has written anything to consider her an author. She is not an activist either, since she does not do anything beneficial for society. I'm not trying to manipulate anything, I'm just speaking facts, and you still don't explain anything. Parispv (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm Cerebral726. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lea Michele 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 you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You have previously been warned about removing content from Lea Michele without valid reasons. Stonewalling by continuing to edit Lea Michele without responding on the Talk Page is borderline vandalism.'' Cerebral726 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You have continued to revert the addition of well-cited content on the Lea Michele without engaging in dialogue on the talk page, against Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution. Please discuss on the talk page, and do not WP:STONEWALL. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact that you consider a stupid internet meme to be an important part of an actress's "personal life" is really weird. Parispv (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my response at Talk:Lea Michele. You also seem to be engaging in behavior that should be avoided, including Disruptive editing, as well as WP:Personal attacks. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:THIRDOPINION on our discussion at Talk:Lea Michele.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Lea Michele has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lea Michele. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Cerebral726 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2022 (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.

Photo
I have also started a talk page discussion at Talk:Lea Michele on updating the photo for Lea Michele. I am notifying you as you have reverted a couple of updates to this photo and I would like to reach a consensus. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Subheaders
I have also started a talk page discussion at Talk:Lea_Michele on including subheaders in Lea Michele. I am notifying you as you have reverted this addition and I would like to reach a consensus. --Cerebral726 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I have left you a response at Talk:Lea Michele. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, I'm Cerebral726. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lea Michele seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you argue your message? I don't understand why you deleted almost all the information I attached for no reason. Parispv (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Timothée Chalamet 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Timothée Chalamet. Brojam (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KyleJoan talk 04:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022: Blocked
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When your block expires, you are welcome to continue the discussion on the article's talkpage. Just please stop using reverts as a substitute for discussion. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KyleJoan talk 21:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Because of persistent disruption on this page, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)