User talk:Surozee
May 2020[edit]
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
KRtau16 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The King: Eternal Monarch, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You made no mistake, seems you already understand my point... I will see to your notification... Surozee (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
And also try to solve the issue of removing content with source done an anonymous user of 2001:or so, the person keeps removing things, solve it, it's getting annoying for readers seeing different content everyday or changing by hours... This is not a playground to be bias... Since you know the policies than me, am sure you are capable of stopping that Surozee (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello if there is any way to protect a content from being edited, please do... The edition on the king eternal page is getting unprofessional and annoying for readers.. thanks Surozee (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The King: Eternal Monarch. Nyook ✉ 15:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Non wikipedic content shouldn't be allowed Surozee (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Pure bluff shouldn't be allowed on a page, Wikipedia should be full of summary and not articles copy and paste.... Just saying mine... Surozee (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed Wikipedia editors only focused on what the public focus in order to put their interests forward, but fails to update others page.... Why is it so?... Am an amateur here, but so far have seen, Wikipedia is not up to 50% perfect, just full of personal interests... If Wikipedia will be a reliable source, it shouldn't be allowed to be edited by anyone as it is... You can provide information to moderators instead of editing... It will be more reliable than now... I don't mind to be blocked, have noticed a lot of irregularities on it and it's nothing special to be able to edit just a Wikipedia page Surozee (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ƏXPLICIT 00:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)