User talk:Miss Beautiful Princess

Sandbox

Please use the sandbox for the edit you wish to make on Raymond v. Raymond. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Please do not make any further unconstructive edits to Raymond v. Raymond. You have been requested to avoid adding unsourced content and have so far chosen not to. Your future edits may therefore be considered vandalism and will be reverted.-- Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL OF IT IS SOURCED. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I SAID DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH THE REST BUT STOP TOUCHING OMG BECAUSE I WORKED HARD TO GET GREAT RELIABLE SOURCES. You are committing vandalism.Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Raymond v. Raymond. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
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. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read please

Look i realize you are new, but you obviously know how to use and read edit summaries. I just warned you, and now im warning you again. Stop edit warring. I told you here, " Fails WP:RS. Stop edit warring left and right, ive already reported you for it" and yet you restore the same references without explanation. Please stop now - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made ONE edit without a summary and it was self explanatory so instead of a conflict I simply added accolades in the body of the article. A simple compromise. They are reliably sourced. People just don't want to include it.Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the sources are not reliable. Explain what part of WP:V and WP:RS they met? None. Nothing to do with not wanting to include it, but you need a reliable source and you must format your references because you are editing a WP:GA and must comply with WP:MOS. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from my talk page)
I did not commit the offense twice because I did NOT revert your edit. I simply added information w/o reverting. It was suppose to be a simple compromise.Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "revert" my edit but you added the information you wanted which is a violation of WP:EDITWARRING. The sources are not reliable, even rephrasing it and adding it is not allowed. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added MOST of my sources from Billboard.com which is one of our most used and reliable sources. While others like Dan56 have been difficult and removed information I added it back and reliably sourced it. I've worked very hard to improve each article. I have done nothing wrong.Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pluggedin.com and similar references which you continually add are not reliable, just because you can find it on google, doesnt mean it can be added. And yes you have done alot wrong, ive warned you above, yet ive lost count have many revisions you have done on Raymond vs Raymond, Dan is in the wrong for edit warring but he is in the right for removing most of your edits due to MOS issues and V/RS issues. Im sorry but this is going to have to be reported and an admin with deal with it, hopefully you learn your lesson. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will NOT revert any more edits BUT 90% of my sources have came from Billboard.com. MOST of my edits were very good. I have done LITTLE WRONG/Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Raymond v. Raymond. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

I accept my punishment and hope to continue to edit and improve articles in the near future.Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for that humility, I'm inclined to unblock as long as your promise to stay away from the article for the next 23 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same offer to Dan56 and he accepted, so I unblocked him. Thus, I've unblocked you, but please do stick to that sole condition above. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and yay!! Thank you so much I luv you! :)Miss Beautiful Princess (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

Confirmed by CheckUser as a sock puppet of Tony254trill (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 03:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]