User talk:What's up now

What's up now, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi What's up now! 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 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:RRTF[edit]

Hello, What's up now! I'd like to invite you to join the Rick Riordan Task Force (formerly the "Percy Jackson" Task Force) of WikiProject Novels. We work to improve articles related to Rick Riordan and his books. You seem to have made many small edits to fix things like punctuation or grammar. Such "behind-the-scenes" work is just as valuable to us as content-focused contributions. Please, check out our project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
*Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account today! We would love to have you.

September 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made to Artie Resnick seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 17:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tracy Scott. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kenny Young, you may be blocked from editing. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, most of your edits have been reverted. Please stop while you are behind. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David S. Lewis. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial commas are not always appropriate or required[edit]

Please read our guideline at MOS:SERIAL It says: "A serial comma (also known as an Oxford comma or a Harvard comma) is a comma used immediately before a conjunction (and or or, sometimes nor) in a list of three or more items: the phrase ham, chips, and eggs includes a serial comma, while ham, chips and eggs omits it. Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent; however, there are times when the serial comma can create or prevent confusion."

In other words: 1. They aren't always needed.

2. If they are, they need to be used consistently in the article.

I particularly hope you are making sure their use is consistent. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. E. B. Du Bois[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at W. E. B. Du Bois. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on W. E. B. Du Bois. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Bobby Scott (musician), you may be blocked from editing. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 22:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Kenny Wayne Shepherd, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. 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! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 22:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tracy Scott, 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. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 22:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tim Story. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 00:37, 3 October 2017 (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).

What's up now (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"I want you to tell me why you walked out on me..."

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2017 (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.