User talk:GrandEditor 5

October 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at R. C. Sherriff. 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. David Biddulph (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Thomastown, Mississippi, you may be blocked from editing. John of Reading (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally agree with your point of view on the content of Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, you still have to abide by the WP:NPOV policy. Please take your content dispute regarding this article to the article talk page. "Fight me" is not an appropriate attitude to take with other editors. -- The Anome (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Diskos.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Diskos.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

The place for discussion of your content dispute on Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials is on the article talk page, rather than edit-warring. I removed the redirect from here to your archive page, as editors need to be able to post messages on a current page, not an archive. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ... I stopped the edit war and took it to ANI. 2 users together on Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials just now violated 3RR. I will not revert further until ANI comes out. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I'm not a sockpuppet, I started editing yesterday. Sad that just a few edits in the spirit of human rights and journalistic integrity could get me banned so quickly. Do you have ANY evidence? GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotako: Could you do me a favor and get the Mr Bean thing off my page? Thanks. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. -- The Anome (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read with interest your statement "I'm not going on a tirade here", and I couldn't help wondering how it would have looked if you had gone on a tirade. JBW (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]