User talk:LadyThunder38

June 2016
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Grant Gustin, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Grant Gustin. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Grant Gustin has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2016 (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: Grant Gustin was changed by LadyThunder38 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.925507 on 2016-07-05T03:50:46+00:00.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Grant Gustin. 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 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 lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Linguist 111 talk 14:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Grant Gustin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Linguist 111 talk 18:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)