User talk:Pyx Dune

Reverting other editors without explanation
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Stephen Fry. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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.--McGeddon (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Stephen Fry 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 get 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. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the above warnings about edit-warring were not necessary, since you already know all about Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, having been blocked a number of times as an IP editor before creating this account. Since you have been edit-warring over a very long period, on a number of articles, and have not been deterred by short blocks, this time the block is for a longer period. I also note that some of your edits have had the essential point of the edit embedded in trivial changes such as adding significant amounts of white space, which looks as though it may possibly have been done in an attempt to hide the nature of what you have been doing. Some of the articles you have edit-warred on will also be protected for a while. When that protection expires, please don't make it necessary for them to be protected for a longer time, as doing so will cause inconvenience for legitimate editors, as well as you. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)