User talk:Alfie Gandon
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Hello, Alfie Gandon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take theWikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visitThe Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember tosign your messages ontalk pages by typing fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me onmy talk page, orask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!GABgab14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 | HiAlfie Gandon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there! Delivered byHostBot on behalf of theTeahouse hosts 16:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedJeju uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page38th parallel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedTokugawa shogunate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesTosa,Satsuma andChōshū. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedIrish slaves myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageStormfront. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for this change? You have left in the existing citation that does not support your change so you need to provide a new citation to support your changes.ww2censor (talk)23:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alfie Gandon. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you just started edit-warring me on an article (and I still hope that you will discuss instead), let me say a general thing. I see your edits in quite some articles I edit, and I appreciate your work. However, there is one thing which I stumble over frequently, including our case at hand. While all your edits are all technically correct, they often hurt ergonomy/readability. For example in our case at hand, where you turn three chronological sub-headlines of six months periods at the same level into four sub-headlines on two different levels, without any discernable reason. Another issue being that while deleting an overload in internal links surely is a good thing, you do in my impression often have a tendency to remove the internal links in those places where clicking them would actually be in the interest of many readers. I do not call on you to just adopt to my point of view in these latter cases, just consider the consideration I just gave. --2A1ZA (talk)22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.
You currently have more than 4 reverts in the last 24 hrs. I won't break 3RR, you already have and I will not join you. Whilst I won't report you, someone else might. I'd recommend you self revert.WCMemail19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversions are adding false information to the article. The religious orders were not simply run by Spanish priests, they were Spanish priests. Please discuss on the talk page. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk)09:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are suspected ofsock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with thenotes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. Thank you.WCMemail19:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Quality posts here (talk)00:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atRodrigo Duterte shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.
Your "RS" is:a writer and artmaker living in Los Angeles. His works in fiction, film, installation and art criticism have been featured in Native Split, Dum Dum Zine, 1979.la, Entropy Magazine, Magenta Mag, and Dublab’s Sleepless. His pop-up events include Watch What You Eat (Thank You For Coming), Analog Video Karaoke (Echo Park Film Center), and the Technobook.club.zzz (talk)13:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atIrish slaves myth shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.Fyddlestix (talk)19:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Fyddlestix (talk)19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to revert my edits to articles you have never been to before. I will report you for violatingWP:HOUNDINGApollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Apollo The Logician (talk)21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.
Per a complaint atthe edit warring noticeboard. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more revision and I will report you for violatingWP:WikihoundingApollo The Logician (talk)Apollo The Logician (talk)15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Apollo The Logician (talk)16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may have stopped wiki hounding but you are still following my editsApollo The Logician (talk)18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
do you have this on syrian warhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjdh_1BlW18— Precedingunsigned comment added by169.244.168.151 (talk)17:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. On Jan. 19 I reverted an edit you had made earlier that day because the changes you made altered cited material. I see that you have reverted me, which is not appropriate, unless I am mistaken that your earlier changes altered cited material. I have once again reverted your edit, for the same reason. Please, as I may be mistaken here, observeWP:BRD and open a discussion about the passages on the article's talk page before reverting any more edits. Thanks.Drdpw (talk)00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atWestern Asia. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have beenreverted. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in theloss of editing privileges.Blatantly removing sourced content, even after having been reverted once. Try to be bold, and move it down yourself if the location "bothers" you. Thanks -LouisAragon (talk)18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.Apollo The Logician (talk)18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo The Logician
 | The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| For your work on rescuing, expanding and improvingIrish slaves mythBastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!12:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
Hey Alfie, posting this here so as not to derail that discussion too much. I encountered problematic edits (use of a non-reliable source) by Fergananim onIrish indentured servantshere, back in January. I had already nominated one of their other articles for deletion on January 31,bere. So no, the MJ nomination was not a retaliation for their AFD vote (I assume that's what you're thinking?), although seeing their username did remind me that I had meant to look at their editing history in a bit more detail (obviously it does bear scrutiny).Fyddlestix (talk)15:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop supporting the wrong information? The real emblem is depicted inthere.OnurT16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated ad nauseam on WP but "Britain" is short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it is not short for "Great Britain" which does indeed not contain Northern Ireland.
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b ... "Britain, UK - These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. Take care not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England – for example when referring to the education system. See Scotland"
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit you made toSoviet Army, did not appear constructive and has beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please usethe sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Don't remove sourced content, or change the meaning toWP:OR interpretations of sourced content.Iryna Harpy (talk)20:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCapture of Savannah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNative American. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atIrish Republican Army (1919-21) shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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 repeatedlyApollo The Logician (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Apollo The Logician (talk)19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atIrish Republican Army (1919-21) shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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 repeatedlyApollo The Logician (talk)19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectIrish bailout of banks. Since you had some involvement with theIrish bailout of banks redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you have not already done so.Kostas20142 (talk)19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time youvandalize Wikipedia, as you did atWestern Asia.Waiting a few weeks/months and then going at it again is textbookWP:POVWARRIOR behaviour. And I see this is somethingdefinetely not new for you as well. -LouisAragon (talk)13:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atBritish Empire shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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. You claimed you'd explained your changes in talk, you didn't. That sort of behaviour will not look good atWP:3RRNB. FollowWP:BRD you've been told often enough.WCMemail16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With your extremely poor editing history, you need to explain why you have again deleted the reference to US forces "island hopping", which is relevant to the background of the Japanese holdout story. Once again you are close to 3RR, with a non-informative remark. Thank you,David J Johnson (talk)10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit you made toSoviet Army, did not appear constructive and has beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please usethe sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Iryna Harpy (talk)20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedSinn Féin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDanny Morrison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time youvandalize Wikipedia, as you did atPegida Ireland.Waiting a few weeks/months and then going at it again is textbookWP:POVWARRIOR behaviour.
Your recent editing history atPegida Irelan shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.Apollo The Logician (talk)20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation intosockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar withthe guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If youhave been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Scolaire (talk)12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the original investigation was into somebody else. I added you when I found evidence that suggested you might be a sockpuppet.Scolaire (talk)12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to readthe guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using theArticle Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed onMount Qandil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please seeWikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be onnotable subjects and should provide references toreliable sources thatverify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.❯❯❯ S A H A12:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]