User talk:Foxbro69

September 2023

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 Interstate 95 in South Carolina, 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. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I-95, but not I-20? Foxbro69 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The removal from I-95 was clearly done to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't their only such edit, either. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Interstate_20_in_South_Carolina&oldid=1174837364 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Interstate 20 in South Carolina 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. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only you disagree. Foxbro69 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The others say it’s fine. Look at the comments made before you made the edits. Foxbro69 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku hasn't even been logged in since reverting you and I'm guessing 69.1.59.248 is you editing while logged out, given that Washuotaku also reverted their edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 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. Thank you. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Foxbro69. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]