User talk:Applechook

October 2016

Hello, I'm Charlesdrakew. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Worcester have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Worcester. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charlesdrakew Charlesdrakew. While I accept that what I first edited and you took down, was promotional, I honestly believe that what I added yesterday was not. I believe that the tone of what I wrote yesterday was no different to the copy about other local organisations on the page. Would you tell me how you think it differs, please?

Before my first edit there was information about Dancefest on the page which I updated as the URL to a project was very old. Would you please reinstate what I wrote or let me know which bits of it you think are promotional and I will just add the bits you think are acceptable.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be editing again Charlesdrakew Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and I'll be permanently logging out of Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if you'll even see this message but the edits I made were in good faith and I feel really sad that I've had such a horrible experience on a site I'd always really valued for its information and its ethos. I'll just leave this here - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

I don't know the mark up for signing out - so bye from Applechook

If you know enough about Wikipedia to find the above guideline you should know not to add promotional material. You are very welcome to edit where you do not have a conflict of interest and will be assisted to do so.Charles (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]