User talk:TaylorD27

December 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to GloRilla, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Big Scarr. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop changing "death" to "demise", per MOS:EUPH. Take a moment to read the edit summaries of editors before you. Please do not edit war to re-insert your incorrect edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Big Scarr, you may be blocked from editing. Stop changing "death" to "demise", per MOS:EUPH. Please discuss on talk page, and stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TaylorD27. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Big Scarr, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:TaylorD27. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TaylorD27|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. What is your connection to Big Scarr, and how do you know specific information about his cause of death? Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was a pain pill addict. That is no secret he was also open about it. Also his FAMILY including his girlfriend that he was staying with said that it was a Percocet 30 overdose and it’s also on YouTube. The pills were not prescribed to him. He bought them from other sources… the rapper Finnese2Tymes also spoke on it. You can not tell me I can’t do edits because you don’t know the correct information. As I stated, I know what I am talking about. Just research it yourself on YouTube. And you’ll have your answer. Have a nice day! TaylorD27 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, please respond to the question above. Second, please respond at Talk:Big Scarr#Edits by User:TaylorD27. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day TaylorD27 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done your research yet? Do that first please TaylorD27 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited you to respond to the edits you have made at Big Scarr, where you have been reverting my edits. You are not obliged to respond at Talk:Big Scarr#Edits by User:TaylorD27, but if you don't have a good reason to revert my edits, and then continue to revert them, I am going to report you for disruptive editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big Scarr. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. You have been invited by multiple editors, in multiple channels to please visit the article talk page before repeatedly restoring your preferred version of the article. Please do so. JeffUK 08:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no “edit war”… you both are at war with yourselves because you both keep messing with my edits. My edits aren’t affecting you or your daily lives. if that is the case, we all can just report each other for disruptive editing. TaylorD27 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:TaylorD27 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: ). Thank you. JeffUK 09:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]