Lunchtime666
April 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Jason Charles has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Jason Charles constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Jason Charles. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Discuss it on the talk page if you think there is a problem -- but please stop removing sourced content. Find something to balance it with, if you think it's out-of-balance. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Charles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Jason Charles edit
If you want to discuss the Critical reaction section of the article do it on the article talk page or here. It does appear that media critics did write the things quoted. Perhaps you can find some favorable reviews to add as well. Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I concur that the text as is seems well cited, therefore find alternative reviews to bring balance into the article. Thanks! Nja247 08:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nja247 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)- I've been told by an administrator that I didn't handle this in the best way -- and he's right. I owe you an apology -- I should have explained what the problem was from the beginning and suggested how to go about fixing it, instead of immediately dropping several "form letter" warnings on you. I'm afraid that I escalated the situation and exacerbated the problem, and as such I indirectly created the context for the repeated reversions that led to your 12-hour block. Here's what I should have explained from the beginning.
- Usually, most people who put negative critical information on an article (such as the negative reviews on Jason Charles) are not doing it out of malice, and it's best to assume from the beginning that malice is not involved (unless the material is explicitly derogatory) Explicitly derogatory material that is unsupported by references can be removed immediately (under Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people, but, in general, negative reviews of play, books, etc. don't fit that. Somebody put them there because, well, they may have been the only reviews they found of the play. If you think that it's unbalanced, don't delete what is there -- instead, find some positive reviews to add to the "Critical Reception" section.
- Anywy, that what I should have said from the beginning, and I apologize for not explaining any of this from the beginning. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)