Hello, I'm Trlovejoy. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alex Orji, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! TRL ( talk) 02:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Could you please use an edit summary with your edits? It's not a huge deal but it's good practice. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 16:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes Centurion Seraph ( talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks and happy editing! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024–25 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forward. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Centurion Seraph! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of J. J. McCarthy several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:J. J. McCarthy, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. While consensus can change, it's not through persistent reversions. Gain consensus at the talk page. Thanks.. — Bagumba ( talk) 04:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you look beyond today’s sample size this is a continuation of him reverting the edits on the page. Ive never reverted anything or anybody on here other than Dissident. There are two types of people on here, those who like to create, and those who like to revert. Hes never added any new or improved material to the page, only deductions.

but yes thank you. Centurion Seraph ( talk) 05:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on J. J. McCarthy‎. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. — Bagumba ( talk) 08:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi CS. Why not contact D93 on HIS talk page. A consensus was stopped and a discussion closed already. Now the players talk page attack will go on until Christmas. A personal one on one or just let it go seems inevitable. I know D93 and he has his own unique way of handing a situation, and I must say, more professionally than I would have. It's not a city council meeting, other people are seeing this. Am I making any sense? Bringingthewood ( talk) 01:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Bringingthewood No you’re not making any sense. I didn’t contact him, nor did I start the conversation on the talk page; D93 did. Why not read the conversation bud? Centurion Seraph ( talk) 02:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not?? I said you SHOULD contact @ Dissident93 on his talk page, that was all. See the animosity brewing? Take the high road .. who cares who started it. I'm JOHN or BRINGINGTHEWOOD ... NOT BUD!! I was trying to help. Don't come at me like you live next door to me. Do what you want. I'm done with this. Bringingthewood ( talk) 02:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Again do me a favor, take this up with Dissident or @ Bagumba, I tried to help ... right, wrong or indifferent, please, do not contact me. Good luck here in the future. Bringingthewood ( talk) 02:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Seraph -- We seem to follow the same articles involving Michigan athletics, and I have noticed your recent edits which appear largely helpful. However, you should become familiar with WP:NPA concerning personal attacks. In short, editors should focus "on content, not on the contributor." Some of your edit summaries have included comments that appear contrary to this guideline. For example, in this edit summary, you refer to another editor ( User:Dissident93) as "an absolute clown" who writes "like an eleven year old". See also this ("your writing is downright poor ... and coming from a juvenile disposition") and this ("I cant tell if the last user was trolling or cant write"). Keep up the good editing but try to keep the comments focused on content. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay. I wasnt aware. Apologies. Centurion Seraph ( talk) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Regarding your reverts e.g. at Jake Long, "I dont see why this is a problem?" should result in a question in a discussion, or a counterargument in an edit summary, not a revert that more or less only says that you like it. My original edit summary specified MOS:EGG. A reader, who might know little about college football, let alone Michigan, expects to get to a page that explains what an All-American is, not just a list of other Mich AAs. The displayed link text is misleading. A lead should be written high level, accessible to casual or non-fans. Something like List of Michigan Wolverines football All-Americans is more suited for mention somehwere on Michigan Wolverines football. Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Bagumba I didnt see that link buried at the end. You reverted the original edit without explaining. You guys are just killing the English language, even in your revert responses you just put a hyperlink without actually writing any words helping explain to me. no wonder why everythings so confusing around here Centurion Seraph ( talk) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm guilty with the shortcuts. The implied expectation is that details are in the link, and has been elegantly written and wordsmithed over the years. It avoids reinventing the wheel. But yes, it's a learning curve. Feel free to ask questions if the links doen't seem helpful. FWIW, some regulars might not even provide a link (or explanation). Regards. — Bagumba ( talk) 04:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply