User talk:Kellycrak88

Welcome![edit]

Hi Kellycrak88! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Your recent editing history at Killone Abbey 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Killone Abbey has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to remove interesting info that is secondarily sourced that's your prerogative instead of rewording it - you could have just sent me a normal message instead of templating me Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you take the copyright violation as serious as you should do. As stated in the template, it is a blockable offence. The Banner talk 12:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88, the text has been WP:REVDEL'd, which means it was a copyright violation. It's not anyone else's responsibility to reword copyright violations. It's their responsibility to have them deleted. The template message explains why. -- asilvering (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killone[edit]

Could you please stop your contentious editing on Killone? The Banner talk 23:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits were only further to consensus of Talk page of Killone Abbey, non-encyclopaedic contentious statement (private) right of way was removed by other neutral editor, as without context or full explanation confuses readers and is unnecessary for an encyclopaedic article hence the confusion in the first place with someone calling it a public right of way and Talk page discussion. Users can read more about Guardianship of OPW on Killone Abbey page. This page is for Killone civil parish, it is not Killone Abbey page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems that you want to restart the edit war. That is NOT a good idea. Please take this advice at heart, my fellow Bannerman. The Banner talk 00:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it seems that way, Killone Abbey page (and Killone) was resolved a week ago.... then Bastun reverted Killone changes today - hence the saga continues Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you jumped straight at it with an edit warring claim that only fuels the flames. The Banner talk 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPA - because I still don't think you've read them - and the more recent ones your mentor should have pointed out that you need to read up on are WP:CANVAS, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:DTR. It is perfectly normal to have relevant and salient facts repeated in two (or more) related articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]