User talk:Dudedood

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm LizardJr8. I noticed that in this edit to The Federalist (website), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Federalist (website). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. mooshberry->talk; 18:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not edit warring as an wp:spa is not a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Federalist (website), you may be blocked from editing. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing my edits. Thanks :) Dudedood (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:brd and wp:consensus, it is down to you to make a case at the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]