User talk:MAXXII12

March 2018

Hello, I'm NZ Footballs Conscience. I noticed that you recently removed content from Angels (Robbie Williams song) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. NZFC^(talk) 22:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Angels (Robbie Williams song), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NZFC^(talk) 22:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Angels (Robbie Williams song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NZFC^(talk) 00:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MAXXII12 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: ). Thank you. NZFC^(talk) 00:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You wrote "I don't need to explain my edits to anyone".

I'm afraid that's just not true. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you don't communicate, we have to block you to present disruption. Therefore you are blocked for edit warring. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!