User talk:Gabe809

February 2020
Hello, I'm IamNotU. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, People of the Dominican Republic, 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, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''In these edits: and, you made unsourced and unexplained changes to statistics numbers that contradicted the cited source. The changes have been reverted. Please be sure to provide a reliable source for any statistics you add or change on Wikipedia, thanks.'' IamNotU (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at People of the Dominican Republic, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''You have made the same change again, and it has been reverted again. Please stop. I have checked the cited source, and the figures given in the article are correct. You may explain your concerns on the talk page if you think there is an error. Your unsourced change to White Latin Americans, which contradicts the existing source, has also been reverted.'' --IamNotU (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at People of the Dominican Republic. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Wikipedia
Please note that I have undone your most recent edits to White Dominicans. As other editors have noted above, you need to include reliable sourcing when adding or modifying article content. In this case, you not only added unsourced content, you stripped content that was supported by sources. Please ensure you review our policies and guidelines regarding sources and ensure that you use article talk pages to discuss any potentially controversial edits. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Gabe, My name is Joanne Suarez, I read the history to dominican republic which you recently edited. i would love to connect sometime to discuss more Warmly, Joanne Joanne Suarez (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dominican Republic. ''In this edit:, you have once again falsely changed population numbers from what is very clearly stated in the cited sources. This is your fourth and final warning.'' IamNotU (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally I would block you for a much shorter duration for a first-time block, however you edit so infrequently that it would be punitive to do so as the block would be meaningless. In order to be unblocked, please post an unblock appeal using the instructions provided in your block message and explain to an administrator that you understand the requirement for reliable sourcing. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)