Gelias01
May 2019 edit
Hello, I'm S0091. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chivalry 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. Thanks. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome Gelias01!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
Aesop edit
The tone of your remarks on the Aesop talk page are objectionable and your subsequent blanking of a section of the article counts as vandalism. If you cannot control your opinionation and continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this way, your account will be recommended for blocking. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but where are the evidence of the supposed blackness of Aesop. Nowhere. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, not. an afrocentrist agenda.
August 2019 edit
Your recent editing history at Aesop 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please understand what being wrong or right is irrelevant, you are edit-warring and removing well-sourced material, both of which are against policy. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry if nobody take wikipedia as a serious site. If the sources are bad or obscur, the all text become irrelevant
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Aesop is just the latest - if you continue your blanking without first getting clear consensus on the talk page, you'll probably be blocked for disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Learn how to sign your name edit
No one will take you seriously if, after several months on Wikipedia, you still do not bother to sign your name on Talk pages. There is a guideline at Wikipedia:Signatures. All it takes is to add four of this symbol ~ after your messages. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)