You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lilly Singh. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lilly Singh 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 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. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XJJRosebrook reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was in compliance to the biographical living persons guidelines, in full compliance. The article in question was filled with poorly sourced material all the way to the names of her parents, among other things to the shameless promotion of her book in nearly every section of the article. Goodness gracious. Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with. ~ Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If unsourced material is removed from an article, it is forbidden to add that material back in without adding a source. This is part of the Wikipedia policy page WP:V, which you should read.

At 20:40 14 Jan 2018, you added, "In the Hebrew Bible, Rephai'm's can be alternatively described either as a celestial being, or an ancient creature, who were considered to be "giants" in [[Iron Age]] [[Land of Israel|Israel.]]." You provided no citation for the "celestial being" business. After it was removed, you re-added it here: 1:34 16 Jan. I pointed out that you were adding unsourced content: 1:50 16 Jan. You re-added the unsourced content at 2:48 16 Jan.

At 17:14 Jan you added the unsourced claim that Ishmael is considered an illegitimate child in "early, and modern Jewish thought" [1]. At 17:30 16 Jan you added the unsourced comment that most Mosques worldwide are keeping people from information about Ishmael for "likely discriminatory, reasons" [2]. At 17:34 16 Jan you added an unintelligible sentence that was unsourced: [3]. At 17:41 16 Jan you added unsourced claims about "modern Islam, and Christian thought; but not so much in modern Jewish thought" [4].

All those edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:V. After they were removed, you re-added them here: [5].

This is a warning that all editors on Wikipedia, yourself included, are expected to refrain from adding unsourced content to Wikipedia, especially after it has been removed. Continued addition of unsourced content to Wikipedia may result in being blocked. Alephb (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]