User talk:BR1997

July 2017
Hello, I'm Kosack. I noticed that you recently removed content from Peter Whittingham without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Derek Dougan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As you're new here, you probably aren't aware of conventions like WP:BRD, which stands for bold, revert, discuss. What that means is, anyone can boldly make an edit, like you did, to an article, but if that edit is reverted, like yours was, then it's a good idea for the bold editor should go to the article talk page to start a discussion about whether the edit should stand or not.
 * There's also a thing called edit warring, which is when an editor or a pair of editors keep doing and undoing the same edits without trying to talk about it. That often ends with the article being locked and possibly one or both editors getting blocked.
 * You've removed that quote five times, which is more than enough. I'm now going to put it back, to restore the original state of the article, and I strongly suggest that, rather than removing it again, you visit the talk page to explain why you think it should be removed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting dead links into articles as references
Please don't do this, this is the second time you've put back this exact dead link. It's literally not cited to anything at all. That's apart from it being a clear WP:BLP violation. If there "will be a complaint", then violating WP:BLP would be what the complaint would be about - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jack Walker, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Calton &#124; Talk 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jack Walker 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You've reverted in the same bit four times in less than a day: you are ALREADY in violation of the Three-Revert Rule, so I suggest that you don't push your luck. Calton &#124; Talk 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Calton &#124; Talk 23:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Jack Walker
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:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are now blocked one month for continued reverting at Jack Walker. You resumed as soon as your 24-hour block expired. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future, including our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons. Your appeal options are at WP:GAB. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's got everything to do with him.

It's got fuck-all to do with him, since it's a random quote not from Jack Walker, not about Jack Walker, referring to someone who is not Jack Walker, which topic is not Jack Walker. The ONLY connection is the daughter, who is not -- wait for it -- Jack Walker. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)