User talk:Goldstandard32

April 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Edward Edwards (serial killer) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

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: Edward Edwards (serial killer) was changed by Goldstandard32 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954323 on 2016-04-24T00:49:31+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2005 AFL season page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Brown

Please stop adding the nickname "Browny" to Jonathan Brown's introductory sentence. This is for very significant nicknames, mostly when the nickname is more commonly used than their real name. All other nicknames go in the infobox, and "Browny" is listed there. Thanks, Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 21:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your recent editing history at Jonathan Brown (Australian footballer) 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 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—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. Alexf^(talk) 11:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Cameron Pedersen— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Goldstandard32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was making what I believed to be a useful contribution to a certain article. I attempted to communicate this change with a user who reverted the change that what I was doing was a positive contribution to the article. I did not receive a response from this user, so I again reverted the text back to my version. This change was reverted back to the original again by a different user, without an explanation. I gave explanations as to the reasons I was making changes, while never receiving counter-points that were intellectually honest. I believe the positive contribution I made to this article should not be a reason for being blocked from making contributions.

Decline reason:

None of this allows you to engage in edit warring. Please reread WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment Yamla, in fairness though, it wasn't that much EW, one BOLD edit and then 2 reverts. Also, the editor is, by number of edits, a newbie, and so probably doesn't know about US-politics discretionary sanctions etc. A "read up on WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD and don't do it again because then you will be blocked again" unblock would not be unreasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that article's talk page has a FAQ section at the top; the inclusion of "falsely" is covered in the second question. --Weazie (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I never noticed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this editor may be a newbie in terms of edits but not so in terms of years. He has been here three years and in that time he has engaged in edit-wars and vandalism. Just check the warnings above. It seems he has difficulty in adjusting to normal editing over these years. Dr. K. 21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but that was some time ago and this time around they made civil comments on talkpages. Anyway, this particular block will be moot soon enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]