User talk:RoseWestfield

February 2023
Hello, I'm Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Abortion Access Front have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from reverting my accurate revision on the AAF page. RoseWestfield (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abortion Access Front. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Abortion Access Front, you may be blocked from editing. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I am not vandalizing. I am simply attempting to make long overdue updates. How do you recommend I do that if you keep reverting my changes? RoseWestfield (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The reasons why I saw your edits as vandalism were 1. you didnt provide any references for the canges you made, 2.your summary did not provide a clear explanation of your edit, 3. you removed referenced content without explanation. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?
 * In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. In cases of blatant vandalism, uncontroversially disruptive changes or unexplained removals, the amount of explanation needed is minimal. But in the event of a content dispute, a convincing, politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes. RoseWestfield (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not as versed as you are at editing pages, but I am updating content to make it more accurate. Many of the reference links for the docuseries aren't even active any longer because the project is a documentary, not a docuseries. RoseWestfield (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)