User talk:Ismadeby

User talk:Ismadeby

August 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did at Gal Gadot. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Not sure what you are up to, but there has been a discussion at the talk page for a while regarding the infobox photo. If you would like to see a different photo in the infobox than the one that has been there for over a week, please take part in the discussion rather than make what appears to be a "pointy" edit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Gal Gadot. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 9 August 2016 (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.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User talk:Winkelvi and Gal Gadot. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. clpo13(talk) 15:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for disrupting the Edit warring notice board. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the three hour duration is just to give me time to sort out the edit warring report. The duration is very likely to increase. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , we edit conflicted, I was in the process of indefing this account as an obvious sock created to cause trouble. Do you mind if I re-block, or do you want to review ANEW report first? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see that it is him. No objections whatsoever, sorry for getting in the way. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you reblocked. I didn't even know who it was, it was just clear it was a troublemaker. Didn't get in the way at all, I'm just slow typing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)