User talk:RedWall2020

August 2024

Your recent editing history at Gal Gadot 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. General Ization ^Talk 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Justin Barrett, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! The Banner talk 22:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Justin Barrett. Thank you. The Banner talk 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You spin it nice, but what Wikipedia needs is a source that with so many words shows that he is a neo-nazi. Circumstantial evidence is not enough for a biography. The Banner talk 01:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Water Torture (Band) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Water Torture (Band). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and no evidence of notability . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Michael Rapaport, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Hanns Martin Schleyer seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hanns Martin Schleyer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article before my changes violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy as it contains language that attempts to humanize a nazi RedWall2020 (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Hanns Martin Schleyer, you may be blocked from editing. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're revisions are disruptive as you are protecting language that is attempting to humanize a nazi RedWall2020 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your* RedWall2020 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, whilst well meaning, reflects a different kind of bias that does not reflect a neutral point of view either. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was meant to glorify Nazism, it would have had something like this: "he was tragically murdered by...". lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alert

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Note especially that you have to have 500 edits before you can edit IP (Israel-Palestine)-articles, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RedWall2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked on false pretenses. Was not adding 'POV' edits.

Decline reason:

As you see nothing wrong with your edits, the block will remain in place. Yamla (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.