User talk:Gaz84avfc

December 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Anthony Joshua has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Anthony Joshua was changed by Gaz84avfc (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.933321 on 2015-12-14T19:28:15+00:00.

Recent edit to Dillian Whyte
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! Param Mudgal talk? 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. John (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Robert Black (serial killer) 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David J Johnson (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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: 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. NebY (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.

Robert Black (serial killer)
I have twice reverted you there and don't want to have a back-and-forth over it. Could you please make your proposal (with sourcing) at Talk:Robert Black (serial killer)? We can't use another Wikipedia article as a source, and the information you are trying to add does not appear in the source for that article. I don't dispute that this is probably true, and it's at the Shane Meadows article; but does it really belong on the Robert Black (serial killer) article? Why? John (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

, see Talk:Robert Black (serial killer). NebY (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2022 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. NebY (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Robert Black (serial killer). 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)