User talk:Abraham LincoIn

Nutshell edit

This edit was unconstructive and certainly did not improve the article. Zefr (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you made a change to an article, George William Mote, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I only meant to revert your edit stating he has a wife with the name "Phebe..." whic was unsourced. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The source is still the same, but I understand. Abraham LincoIn (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at George William Mote 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you keep adding that same garbage about false information to Talk:George William Mote, or anywhere else, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it false, you scumbag? Abraham LincoIn (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what. the. hell. Abraham LincoIn (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell are you a moderator? Out of all the moderators I've come across on Wikipedia, you by far are the worst I've ever seen. Abraham LincoIn (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 is an admin abuser.

I stopped, but he still blocked me. Stop him before he gets you. Abraham LincoIn (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]