User talk:Forza2020

Forza2020, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Forza2020! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hi

You need to be a bit more careful before you change wikilinks. On Falkland Islanders, the links were direct to people articles, you changed this to a rather odd selection.

Regards,

WCM_email 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, it seems a friendly warning on your talk page wasn't the correct approach. As a new user to wikipedia, you should be aware that edit warring is likely to result in a block. Consider this a formal warning ref your edit warring.

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islanders 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. WCM_email 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• No edit warring was intended. My apologies if that is what it appears as. I didn't actually re-vert any edits but made my own changes. Kind regards. Forza2020 (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No you were edit warring, and you did revert to re-impose your changes that are incorrect. You should be linking to people articles not the tangential articles you're choosing. Just because you didn't hit the undo button doesn't change the fact that you've edit warred. WCM_email 11:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not link to 'tangential' articles. Also, you are edit warring at the Shetland article. Your revert was inexplicable there. Please stop. Forza2020 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes you did. I suggest you read WP:BRD, when your edit is challenged the onus is on you to take your proposal to talk. I've explained why you were reverted. Now please stop edit warring. WCM_email 09:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You have not once provided an actual explanation for your reversions. The edits made are supported by sources. Forza2020 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The explanation is above, now stop edit warring. WCM_email 15:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that it is you who is edit warring? You also are rolling back constructive edits from reliable sources, and providing a section on 'Language" in common for practically every other geographic location article on Wikipedia. So, again, what is your reasoning for the rollbacks? You need to explain yourself on the talk page. Cheers. Forza2020 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually I am at 2RR, you are at 3RR. I would invite you to self-revert and explain yourself on the talk page. Are you prepared to do that? And again I have explained myself - I have reverted you because you are changing directly linked articles, with articles that are tangential to the subject. I really don't understand why you are being so bloody awkward about discussing your edits. WCM_email 16:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we are both at 2RR in terms of the past 24 hours, unless you just reverted me again. I will go to the talk page if you reply. So often on here people revert and tell others to go to the talk page, but then disappear or don't explain themselves. Forza2020 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your knowledge of wikipedia editing is growing fast for an account registered on 28 September 2019. If you have an alternative account, now would be the time to disclose it. I have explained myself to you and it seems that you're reverting out of bad faith presumptions. Do I take it that you refuse to self-revert, having given you that option I would appreciate a reply. WCM_email 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I never had an issue with you modifying my changes at Shetland, but simply the blind reverts of everything. There was no hostility intended. Regards, Forza2020 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

You are now at 3RR, please read wp:3RR. If you revert again you will be edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I will ignore your last revert, as it was before this warning. I am being very kind.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for post 1932 American politics and related people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lana Lokteff; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

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.

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. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)