User talk:Malumanu1

February 2019

Hello, I'm 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to stop. There are EXTENSIVE sources about this with multiple high quality sources included in the material you are removing, so your edit summaries are simply lies or wilful ignorance. You will end up blocked if you continue your disruptive edits. You are welcome to use the article talk page to discuss this, but please read the previous discussions and realize there is a strong consensus about this material staying since it has had a significant impact on a public figure. Ravensfire (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]