User talk:Depay11

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Moors murders 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. David J Johnson (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Hawn

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Goldie Hawn; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kalidou Koulibaly, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kosack (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Goldie Hawn; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Depay11 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: ). Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Depay11, "partner" is the field used in biography infoboxes to note long-term unmarried relationships. If you believe that should be changed, you can start a request for comment at Template:Infobox person and get consensus to change it. If you continue to edit war to remove a perfectly acceptable field based on your personal preference, you will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to give you an "Only Warning" but I see you';ve been given a final warning, which is the same in effect. You should stop removing "partner" from BLP's or you will be sanctioned for it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The report is at the noticeboard. You have gone ahead with your campaign to remove partners from articles after the above warning from an administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that if you continue changing articles without citing a source or communicating, your next block will likely be substantially longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depay11. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]