User talk:Alfie Gandon

Hello, Alfie Gandon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GAB^gab 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GAB, I'd seen some of these already but I'll take a look at the rest. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hope you've enjoyed your experience so far. GAB^gab 21:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfie Gandon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeju uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tokugawa shogunate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tosa, Satsuma and Chōshū. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish slaves myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stormfront. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 3rd millennium page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for this change? You have left in the existing citation that does not support your change so you need to provide a new citation to support your changes. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existing citations support my change, check the ages. Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alfie Gandon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you just started edit-warring me on an article (and I still hope that you will discuss instead), let me say a general thing. I see your edits in quite some articles I edit, and I appreciate your work. However, there is one thing which I stumble over frequently, including our case at hand. While all your edits are all technically correct, they often hurt ergonomy/readability. For example in our case at hand, where you turn three chronological sub-headlines of six months periods at the same level into four sub-headlines on two different levels, without any discernable reason. Another issue being that while deleting an overload in internal links surely is a good thing, you do in my impression often have a tendency to remove the internal links in those places where clicking them would actually be in the interest of many readers. I do not call on you to just adopt to my point of view in these latter cases, just consider the consideration I just gave. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.

You currently have more than 4 reverts in the last 24 hrs. I won't break 3RR, you already have and I will not join you. Whilst I won't report you, someone else might. I'd recommend you self revert. WCM_email 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but feel you've copied and pasted this, WCM. It's me who's been asking you to discuss things this past while, remember? Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected British Empire so you all can discuss without disrupting the article. However it's clear to me that much of the edit warring has originated with you. It doesn't matter how much you believe your preferred version is correct, or supported by consensus, the back and forth editing is disruptive. Use the talk page, don't continue to revert. If consensus cannot be reached, seek dispute resolution. This is a kind reminder that if you continue to edit war after the protection expires, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks for your understanding — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your course of action, but I'm not happy that I'm the only editor you've seen fit to caution. I have used the talk page, more than most if you'd taken the time to check. Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD, you were bold, you were reverted, you then use the talk page to get an agreement to the changes. If you can't get agreement then you raise an RfC to get other editors involved and you can also look at dispute resolution. What you don't do is simply say I'm right and impose your edits over long standing consensus based solutions. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and there's more at issue here than how long this tag-team have enjoyed their consensus. For example, what solution is being defended with this revert: [1] Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then add WP:NPA to your reading list. Editors will disagree with you, deal with it on the talk page ----Snowded ^TALK 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked you that question was because I don't understand how you can describe that revert as reflecting a long-standing consensus-based solution. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That relates to a second issue you seem to have on several articles, namely style. I reverted one sent of changes not because they were wrong, but because they did not read as well as the original. The revert you referenced is another like that. Again the solution is to go to the talk page. It won't help if you edit war over substantive issues, it will just incline more editors to press the revert button. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style wasn't the reason given for the revert (linking sovereign state was), and I did go to the talk page: Talk:British_Empire#Unconstructive. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is not enough to go to the talk page, you have to gain consensus there BEFORE you remake a contested edit ----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions are adding false information to the article. The religious orders were not simply run by Spanish priests, they were Spanish priests. Please discuss on the talk page. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. Thank you. WCM_email 19:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'someone', do you mean you? I'm afraid your quest to right great wrongs has fevered your imagination somewhat, WCM. Not guilty. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rodrigo Duterte 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.
Your "RS" is: a writer and artmaker living in Los Angeles. His works in fiction, film, installation and art criticism have been featured in Native Split, Dum Dum Zine, 1979.la, Entropy Magazine, Magenta Mag, and Dublab’s Sleepless. His pop-up events include Watch What You Eat (Thank You For Coming), Analog Video Karaoke (Echo Park Film Center), and the Technobook.club. zzz (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Irish slaves myth 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. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypocrisy is nauseating. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert my edits to articles you have never been to before. I will report you for violating WP:HOUNDINGApollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We mightn't get along, but I must caution you; Fyddlestix has reported me for edit-warring, and honour will surely compel them to follow that with a report about you. Stay free, a chara. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to fear. I have done nothing wrong it is YOU who are in the wrong. Enjoy being blocked. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you weren't edit-warring at some point in the recent past? And are you really allowed to block people? Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more revision and I will report you for violating WP:Wikihounding Apollo The Logician (talk) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People in glasshouses ought not throw stones, Ap. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"May"? Are you unsure? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have stopped wiki hounding but you are still following my edits Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting stance to take, given your first ever edit at Prehistoric Ireland was today when you reverted my edit. Didn't you hear that the date for the evidence of first humans in Ireland has been pushed back since they found that bone in Clare? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do you have this on syrian war https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjdh_1BlW18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.168.151 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. On Jan. 19 I reverted an edit you had made earlier that day because the changes you made altered cited material. I see that you have reverted me, which is not appropriate, unless I am mistaken that your earlier changes altered cited material. I have once again reverted your edit, for the same reason. Please, as I may be mistaken here, observe WP:BRD and open a discussion about the passages on the article's talk page before reverting any more edits. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Western Asia. 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. Blatantly removing sourced content, even after having been reverted once. Try to be bold, and move it down yourself if the location "bothers" you. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo The Logician

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your work on rescuing, expanding and improving Irish slaves myth BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly, ta! Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alfie, posting this here so as not to derail that discussion too much. I encountered problematic edits (use of a non-reliable source) by Fergananim on Irish indentured servants here, back in January. I had already nominated one of their other articles for deletion on January 31, bere. So no, the MJ nomination was not a retaliation for their AFD vote (I assume that's what you're thinking?), although seeing their username did remind me that I had meant to look at their editing history in a bit more detail (obviously it does bear scrutiny). Fyddlestix (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things bear scrutiny. You filed the AFD just two hours after F's comments. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop supporting the wrong information? The real emblem is depicted in there. OnurT 16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated ad nauseam on WP but "Britain" is short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it is not short for "Great Britain" which does indeed not contain Northern Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b ... "Britain, UK - These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. Take care not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England – for example when referring to the education system. See Scotland"

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not short for the UK, because it has more letters. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noone said it was. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really?Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Soviet Army, 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.
Don't remove sourced content, or change the meaning to WP:OR interpretations of sourced content. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have some ongoing problems with edit warring articles. No, you don't just remove long-standing, consensus content for as you did here, not bother leaving a message on the article's talk page properly explaining why you removed it, then try to leave the content to be forgotten in the annals of time. You haven't bothered to leave any form of record of what was removed, or why. It's evident (here) that you just want to drop the content. Such changes to content are not discussed via edit summaries. You have made a bold change, ergo you should follow WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capture of Savannah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Irish Republican Army (1919-21) 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 Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ought I delete this warning, like you do? Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what you want, it is your talk page. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a peculiar dedication to warn me about the possibility of breaching 3RR (after my single edit today at Irish Republican Army (1919–22)) a bare hour after your fourth revert within three hours at Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I salute you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt even realise that. Either way your slow edit wars are getting boring.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Irish Republican Army (1919-21) 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 repeatedlyApollo The Logician (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the relevant talk page. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how it works. Those who are challenging the longstanding version are supposed to do that.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That text has been in the article since January.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Irish bailout of banks. Since you had some involvement with the Irish bailout of banks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kostas20142 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Western Asia. Waiting a few weeks/months and then going at it again is textbook WP:POVWARRIOR behaviour. And I see this is something definetely not new for you as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at British Empire 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. You claimed you'd explained your changes in talk, you didn't. That sort of behaviour will not look good at WP:3RRNB. Follow WP:BRD you've been told often enough. WCM_email 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty disingenuous, even for you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With your extremely poor editing history, you need to explain why you have again deleted the reference to US forces "island hopping", which is relevant to the background of the Japanese holdout story. Once again you are close to 3RR, with a non-informative remark. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your article-related point on the article's talk page. Your first comment drove me to look at my recent edits [2]; why do you describe these as extremely poor? Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at your Talk page, including a block, confirms your poor editing history. If you are going to edit correctly, then add your deletion to the body of the article - as you have suggested - rather than a non-informative deletion. You seem to regard Wikipedia as a battleground, rather than constructively discussing any "edits" by yourself. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not describing my edits as poor, you're parroting the views of others and assuming they're correct. I've replied to your article-related point on the article's talk page. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Soviet Army, 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sinn Féin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Morrison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pegida Ireland. Waiting a few weeks/months and then going at it again is textbook WP:POVWARRIOR behaviour.

Your recent editing history at Pegida Irelan 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. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the original investigation was into somebody else. I added you when I found evidence that suggested you might be a sockpuppet. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Mount Qandil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ❯❯❯ S A H A 12:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]