User talk:Davidroaming

April 2021
Hello, I'm Njd-de. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Operation Hydrant, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   – NJD-DE (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Operation Hydrant. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.   ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Operation Hydrant, you may be blocked from editing.   – NJD-DE (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. It's a correction of wrong use of words Davidroaming (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Senior police officers are expected to use the English language correctly. They are also expected to understand judicial process. Davidroaming (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources refer to them as victims. Please do not add your personal analysis into articles. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You might wanna read WP:3RR and discussing your change on the article talk page instead of making the same edit again. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What about the first paragraph. That's not quoting a source Davidroaming (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The one that you changed again? The source for it is an article of the Guardian, which doesn't refer to them as complainants but as victims. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, leaving the content aside, I think you might wanna reconsider your edit behavior. It's disruptive. I had referred you to the three-revert rule, which by now you have already violated... – NJD-DE (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You also violated the rule, and your edits were wrong. Victims don't come forward, complainants do. This was the opinion of Justice Sir Richard Henriques. Davidroaming (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't violate that rule, but feel free to open a report at the edit warring noticeboard. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing the article Operation Hydrant for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. 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:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)