User talk:Perrie101

Welcome!

Hi, Perrie101. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molson Canadian Rocks

I see you're determined to remove sourced information from Wikipedia. That much is clear.

What I don't get is why. Do you find it makes him seem like less of an American hero if we note this? If so, no worries. He seems like a conqueror now.

Do you have a genuine concern for Yahoo's reliability? If so, why no concern for the millions (and millions) of other slightly crappy sources we use there?

Did you read something somewhere that said The Rock isn't a Canuck? If you could source that, you'd win the argument. Sourced information is good information, even if it's not 100% true. In this case, it happens to be 100% true, which helps.

If you can't source it as a lie, I'm just going to keep reverting and explaining till it makes sense. If I can't get through to you, I'm going to put a friendly formal warning tag on your talk page. Then maybe another. Then maybe you'll be blocked. That's no fun for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for your legal confusion in the last edit summary, yes, being born to Canadians after that date counts, but so does becoming "a citizen because of changes to the Citizenship Act."

The second paragraph of "Who became a citizen under the 2009 law?" applies to The Rock. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Avril Lavigne page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Avril Lavigne. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Avril Lavigne, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. IPadPerson (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Avril Lavigne 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are still very much edit warring on the Avril Lavigne article; I strongly suggest you achieve consensus on the article's talk page regarding the edits you are trying to make before you attempt to make them again, otherwise you will be blocked on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised the issue on the article's talk page - that's a start. Now you need to get consensus on the edit otherwise it's called edit warring. And let me give you fair warning: the next blind reversion you make prior to getting that consensus will earn you a block. Tabercil (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]