User talk:Dennis1986Savanah

Dennis1986Savanah, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Dennis1986Savanah! 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 MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Charlene Amoia, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Charlene Amoia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
See WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS - you shouldn't be removing sections from an article's talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Charlene Amoia, you may be blocked from editing. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For safety reasons, I am asking you to remove this information. It is a safety measure and important. Dennis1986Savanah (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make that argument over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Charlene Amoia but until then you need to stop blanking sections on the talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'm a volunteer at WP:BLPN. I have a few questions for you regarding your statement above.

Most notable living people, and ideally all encyclopedic entries for living persons, have a non-controversial year of birth. Where controversy exists, it's often a matter of how self-serving a statement on social media might be, against what reliable independent third-party sources indicate. It appears that right now, there's no good source for the year. One reliable primary source (graduation literature) got disappeared at the source since the talk page discussion was opened, hmm. What sources do you currently dispute, if any?
Generally, it is not a matter of safety to merely discuss a year of birth on a talk page; usually that kind of talk just means the innocuous thing to be removed is actually true because it allegedly might implicate safety. What's unsafe about a year of birth?
And if the mere year without date is unsafe because it's true, then why is the subject's twitter (alone) the source to support the current version stating a different year?

If a private email is best to explain those points, my link is open. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally separate question: do you know the subject of this article? Your answer would clarify things. If you are the subject, please say so. If you know the subject, please state the exact nature of your relationship. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]