User talk:Spidersnakes

Spidersnakes, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Spidersnakes! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Bald and Bankrupt, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nemov (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf??? Shut up Spidersnakes (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spidersnakes (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Ok Spidersnakes (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

accident Spidersnakes (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{remove} Spidersnakes (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bald and Bankrupt, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will the other guy had a personal grudge against my edit Spidersnakes (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no grudge against you or your edit. Your edit failed to meet the guidelines for Wikipedia. Happy editing. - Nemov (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do hold grudges consistently. You also send warnings to people when they didn't do anything wrong. Wikipedia should remove your page. Spidersnakes (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spidersnakes (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spidersnakes (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to make changes without discussion or sources, as you did at Bald and Bankrupt, you may be blocked from editing. Please refrain from reverting good faith edits like you did when you added the birthday. If you have questions about why it was removed please read the comment and the article that was added. Before adding associated acts please find consensus in Talk:Bald_and_Bankrupt before making further additions. If you continue to ignore direction you could be blocked from making further edits. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any disruptive changes! I citied a valid source for my edit. You DO hold a grudge!! Please stop giving warnings for an unjustified reason. You have done this to many people before and I WILL contact Wikipedia if you do this again. Spidersnakes (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like you have a case please "contact Wikipedia." There's no reason to be get upset. Please familiarize with standard Wikipedia practices. At the very least follow the direction of the editors trying to help. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic! You don't actually realize what you have done. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia practices! Stop giving warnings to people who did NOTHING wronng!! Some guy reverted my edit rightfully wanting a source for my edit, and I edit it again with a source. That is NOT "disruptive editing." The reason you really have the warning is because you hold a GRUDGE!!! STOP HOLDING GRUDGES!!! I can not follow the directions of an editor that holds grudges and gives warnings for an unjustified reason. Spidersnakes (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did not add a source for the birth date addition here, and the source for this edit doesn't meet these criteria. Identifying a reliable source is not always an easy thing to do, but there are plenty of places to ask for guidance about that; also, the warning that upset you had specific information about what it was about and what you could do to find out more about what the issue was with your edit (and where to discuss it). No unjustified cautions or warnings have been given, and you must start following the central Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. But he also removed my edit for which I did add a source because of a personal grudge. Spidersnakes (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at User talk:Spidersnakes, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

You keep insisting that another editor has a "personal grudge", and that is not acceptable. There were good reasons why that edit was reverted, and those have been explained to you – and again, you have been given advice on how to proceed. bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was fine that one edit was reverted, but he removed another of my edits which shouldn't have been. I have not made any "disruptive edits". The other user DOES have a personal grudge. He needs to understand this!!! Spidersnakes (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As bonadea mentioned above, you appear to have an issue with me removing the associated act from the article. You're not the first person to add poorly sourced associations to the page which is why that topic has been discussed at Talk:Bald_and_Bankrupt. The source you added for this edit doesn't meet these criteria. In other words, the source isn't reliable according to Wikipedia. For you to add an associated act there's need to be a notable connection. I hope you take some time learn more about Wikipedia standard practices. Best of luck! - Nemov (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add an "poorly sourced associations." The only people who think that have a grudge. Spidersnakes (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Spidersnakes! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I revert edits on mobile?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure.... Spidersnakes (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Stop accusing other editors of having a "grudge". bonadea contributions talk 22:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never "diseupted" Wikipedia. Stop making false claims. Also, the editor does have a grudge against me, stop defending him. Spidersnakes (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"disrupted" I meant. Typo Spidersnakes (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]