User talk:Pinkystories

August 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Meg Ryan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  16:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Meg Ryan, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Dennis Quaid.  General Ization Talk  16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Quaid quote is not from a reliable source and has been denied in the past, so I removed it. I gave the reason for it. Stop allowing gossip sources in your stories.

Your recent editing history at Dennis Quaid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization Talk  16:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsuitable material
Hi, the material you are adding is not encyclopedic; unsubstantiated claims of infidelity are a WP:BLP violation, and as they are made by his ex-wife they are hardly independent, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Pinkystories wasn't including unsubstantiated claims of infidelity. He was including a rebuttal of claims made by his ex-wife.  The rebuttals were made by the accused.  Looking further into this, I found his ex-wife later retracted the accusations.  I cleaned up the article(s) in question.  But for the record, I don't think Pinkystories was at fault.  Work permit (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is not permitted is the removal of reliably sourced content to replace it with other content, reliably sourced or otherwise, that favors or disfavors the subject of the article (which is precisely what this editor was doing, and edit warring over). Doing so does not reflect WP:NPOV and is WP:UNDUE. If there exist contradictory comments on this topic that are all reliably sourced, and all are determined to be relevant to the subject, all should be included.  This can include reliably sourced denials by the speaker of comments reliably sourced and attributed to them in the past.   General Ization  Talk  18:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Looking through the edit history, he was the one deleting the rebuttal made by Quaid.  Work permit (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, the edit summaries of and  make it clear that this editor needs to read Assume good faith carefully.  General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 19:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
I've noticed the edits you made were with good intention. When your edits got reverted, you reverted back and got got caught up in what is called an "edit war". When you see someone has reverted your edits, go to the article's talk page and lay out why you made the edit. Hopefully there is a section discussing the reversion but if not revert the reversion then don't revert again. Discuss the issue with editors until you reach a consensus.

You will see I did some research and added a yet more reliable source made to a reliable news organization. And I added a section to the talk page of both articles, in case editors want to discuss further.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Work permit (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)