User talk:24.29.56.240

April 2018

Hello, I'm Felicia777. An edit that you recently made to Joe Mauer 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! Felicia (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Judy Lewis, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Allthefoxes. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to John Wetteland—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allthefoxes, I explained my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.29.56.240. Could you please undo your revert? 24.29.56.240 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Harsh 2580. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, The Basketball Diaries (film), but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. - Harsh (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Life in a Northern Town has been reverted.
Your edit here to Life in a Northern Town was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.discogs.com/artist/90184-The-Dream-Academy) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hello, I'm NZFC. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mike Patton without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Take it to the talk page, you have been reverted three times and are at risk of WP:EDITWAR NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.29.56.240 reported by User:NZFC (Result: ). Thank you. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 07:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

warning deleted - see my answer. --Serols (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serols, in what way were my edits unconstructive? The material I removed was all unsourced and tagged. Some of it had been tagged for more than a decade. Do you have a source for any of it? If not, could you kindly undo your revert? 24.29.56.240 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page before you delete whole sections. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Tim Lincecum, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dolores O'Riordan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Oroborvs (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oroborvs, valid reasons were provided in the edit summaries, so your note does not appear applicable. You may want to take a closer look at the edits I made, which most certainly were constructive and improved the article. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Dolores O'Riordan, you may be blocked from editing. Oroborvs (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blanking out portions of page content. Stop your nonsense. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I'm Asartea. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Rich Piana—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Asartea ^Talk ^|^Contribs 15:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was constructive. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration I agree with you Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cheap Trick into Bun E. Carlos. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diannaa. Please see attribution at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bun_E._Carlos&diff=990398146&oldid=990397419. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for the mistake. You edit summary was perfect.— Diannaa (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Diannaa. Thanks. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Joan Armatrading, 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the explanation I provided was adequate, but I have amplified on it just to avoid any problems. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, blanking because of preference is not appropriate. If it is sourced or a standard section, it is not appropriate to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material I blanked on the Rebecca St. James page (which you reinstated) was unsourced. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is understood to be sourced to the liner notes. You are not edit warring and have no leg on which to stand, and that was not your original reason. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not edit-warring. I was simply removing unsourced material, and was unaware of the article style advice you cited. Lose the attitude. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say potato, I say edit warring. Do you understand that it is assumed to be sourced? Also, do you know that it is neither controversial or a violation to have it. It was easily sourced, so it might be better to tag uncontroversial sections rather than removing them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the article style advice (which, as I just said, I had been unaware of). I have no problem with leaving the material in. I do have a problem, however, with your condescending, smartass attitude. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.