User talk:NintendoMario456

Talk:List of Nintendo products[edit]

It appears that Octopath Traveler is published by Nintendo. Would you care to comment on Talk:List of Nintendo products on why you think that title should be excluded from the list? Please provide reliable source(s) to support your claim, e.g. sources that show the title is not published by Nintendo. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing games from the list if you do not have any sources that support your claim. You have previously been invited to use the Talk page to discuss this topic but failed to provide any sources there. —DanielFreed (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you were wondering about the deletion, here we discuss it. Feel free to comment on there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nintendo_products —DanielFreed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at List of Nintendo products 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.
It's clear you're also the IP editor who removed this content. You really need to explain your position on the talk page rather than blindly remove the information. Also, it would be a good idea if you undid your last edit; that "self-revert" won't count against the three-revert limit, which you're already well over. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit while logged in was to a talk page, so I don't buy the argument of not knowing how to post to one. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Elder Scrolls. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]