Sally-seito31

February 2024

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Susan Gerbic seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Susan Gerbic. 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. Please read WP:Alleged, and please don't blank sections of articles without good reason to. ‍ Relativity 20:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering what's so important about her that 2 people are fighting this hard for her. Sally-seito31 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Susan Gerbic, you may be blocked from editing. Please read what I linked in my last warning, and saying that Susan Gerbic doesn't deserve her own article is not an excuse for blanking. ‍ Relativity 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I explained in her talk page.As Susan Gerbic is known to engage in paranormal topic, I think we should have better sources and citings for her article from reliable sources. I removed parts that were not sourced from reliable sources Sally-seito31 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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; 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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) 20:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)