Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kennedy family, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 22:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gugrak. I noticed that you recently removed content from Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis 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 your 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. Gugrak (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because there are many different sources on if she gave credit or not. A biographer of Anne Lowe said she never discredited Lowe and other sources (Like Washington Post) debunked it. Unfriendnow (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Gugrak (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Carole Radziwill. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please stop edit-warring in spurious royal titles. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Hypothetical,_dissolved_and_defunct_titles for why not. David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Clearly that rule doesn’t apply since we have many defunct royals who have their titles on their pages. Even if they don’t use them. Anthony was a prince. I’m changing it accordingly. Carole also uses her title. Unfriendnow (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unfriendnow! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Nicholas Galitzine that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DankJae 08:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Unfriendnow! Your additions to The Gilded Age (TV series) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I noticed that in this edit to Michael LeMoyne Kennedy, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Douglas Harriman Kennedy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Samf4u (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unfriendnow! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Lord Nicholas Windsor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please also note that you have been warned before about mislabeling edits. It is disruptive to continue with a series of edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lord Nicholas Windsor. You warned at least twice about mislabeling edits as minor. This is not a minor edit. DrKay (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jacob Rees-Mogg. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Deborah Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Edits like this are not helpful. Please learn what is, and is not, relevant to the lead of an article! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will recommend you to be blocked if you keep on doing things like this. That is not lead material, and there are no reliable sources for those titles. This talk page of yours looks like you should have been blocked long ago.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: It goes on. I have just reverted a dozen of their edits from March onwards, still have another dozen to look over. 0 sources, 0 understanding of what a good encyclopedic biograhy is like, minimal competence (here is the only edit I've looked at that even attempted to add a source). --JBL (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles Wellesley, 9th Duke of Wellington. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. JBL (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]