User talk:Abysshark

Hello, I'm HelenDegenerate. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jeremy Wade 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. Thanks. HelenDegenerate (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Loch Ness Monster have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Loch Ness Monster was changed by Abysshark (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951986 on 2021-04-15T09:46:35+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Purosinaloense. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, National Geographic Society, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Purosinaloense (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abysshark! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to YouTube. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tyrannosaurus, you may be blocked from editing. —J. M. (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again, please stop marking your edits as minor. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop marking your edits as minor

Again, please stop marking your edits as minor. Your edits are not minor and marking major edits as minor is considered poor etiquette on Wikipedia. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviolations

Please do not copy text from existing websites. This is a copyright violation per WP:CV. Fieryninja (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me, my bad. than you. Abysshark (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Venus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Stop adding this material. You are not sourcing your changes, you are adding unneeded material, and you are adding grammar errors. If you don't understand then discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been undone three times. Do not restore this again. Meters (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Venus, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Venus 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. Meters (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are attempting to add is so badly written that it is not acceptable. It is full of errors, and no, there is no source in the article that claims that the planet is completely circular (or more correctly, spherical) because "the environment of the planet is pretty much the same everywhere". Meters (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing.

Sorry for mistakes. Here is my apology. And one more thing, don't let people and gravity keep you down. :) MsMisinformation (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]