User talk:Donnola 3

Oluniké Adeliyi

Please do not re-add "singer" or "rapper" to the article for Oluniké Adeliyi. She is clearly not known for either talent, there are no references that support that she might have such talents, and therefore those adjectives and related categories do not belong on her article. If you re-add those descriptions to Adeliyi's article, you may be accused of vandalism. Thank you, PK T(alk) 14:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...but she did provide vocals for cali swag district's song "teach me how to dougie", so why not. Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oluniké Adeliyi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PK T(alk) 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she's known more for having a hissy fit at a theatre than she is for any rapping ability. Backing vocals for whatever you're referring to is nowhere near enough to say she's a "rapper". PK T(alk) 17:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...but she did provide vocals for cali swag district's song "teach me how to dougie", so why not." Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Oluniké Adeliyi, you may be blocked from editing. PK T(alk) 01:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Oluniké Adeliyi. PK T(alk) 16:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Corn & Peg, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Corn & Peg; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Magitroopa (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

will the other user engaging in the edit war also be blocked Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually the user continuing to edit war, I've told you multiple times that it must be sourced- randomly adding nationalities in (like you currently are) is WP:OR and it still must be sourced. Please discuss it on the talk page or include a source for the information, otherwise, it is original research. Magitroopa (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Talking Tom and Friends (TV series), 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, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Talking Tom and Friends (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talking Tom and Friends (TV series); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. AussieLegend (✉) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removal of categories for Wyclef Jean

This edit again removes a series of categories for Wyclef Jean that are backed up by sources in the article, with the edit summary "Forgot to remove these also". Why are they being removed in the first place? Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it CLEARLY stated that Wyclef is not American. You should think about that before just re-adding categories even when they are backed up by sources in articles. Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that he was born in Haiti and -- in the article's second sentence -- that he immigrated to the United States. His nationality has nothing to do with negating that he grew up and/ or lived in New York and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Donnola 3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because i Disruptive editing: edit warring, lack of actual responsiveness to other users' concerns; re-addition of challenged content without providing an inline citation that directly supports the material; using a template as signature for a reason. Only ToBeeFree can respond to this since it is between them and me. Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Actually ToBeFree is the one admin who can't respond to this, since they placed the block, The fact that you think you can dictate who responds to your unblock requests, plus the fact that this appeals does nothing but copy the block reason, clearly indicates that you are not ready to be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Those are the reasons that you were blocked. You need to convince an admin that you acknowledge your "mistakes" and that you will not do it again. Simply asking to be unblocked isn't enough. I see that you're still using a template for your signature, which you were warned not to do so that won't help either. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only ToBeeFree can respond to this since it is between them and me. Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Anyone can comment, as the reviewing admin alluded to. This not between ToBeFree and you, it is between the community and you. And again, please stop using templates in your signature. Per WP:SIG#NoTemplates, they are forbidden. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, i will not stop using it. It has already been removed by ToBeFree himself anyway. Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, it is not a template, it is a page made in the [[User:]] namespace. Donnola 3 (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to stop using something that is specifically forbidden, you're going to find yourself blocked again when this block is over. ToBeFree did not remove the template, which should be obvious since it is displayed ate the end of every post that you make. Instead he simply overwrote it with warning text. Templates can and do exist in user space and if you had actually read WP:SIG#NoTemplates you would have seen the example of a signature template uses the same format for the name as yours does. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Donnola 3/signature

User:Donnola 3/signature, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Donnola 3/signature and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Donnola 3/signature during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 13:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Donnola 3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because i Disruptive editing: edit warring, lack of actual responsiveness to other users' concerns; re-addition of challenged content without providing an inline citation that directly supports the material; using a template as signature for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnola 3 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is obviously disruptive. I'm going to go revoke your talk page access now. Yamla (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.