Sexismcorrector23

December 2020

Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Peter Sutcliffe have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. We use what the source uses. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits are constructive, will be re-attempted. Modern language required, in response to requests from family members and women’s groups Sexismcorrector23 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you! New to editing, hopefully can come to agreement Sexismcorrector23 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Sutcliffe. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Lakesideminers edits were constructive and necessary. Please avoid reverting constructive edits. The word prostitute is thoroughly condemned and unless direct quotes should be exchanged for sex worker Sexismcorrector23 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 14:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. I saw the report regarding your edit warring and wanted to discuss this with you. You appear to have stopped edit warring on the Peter Sutcliffe article. This is good. Understand; you were on the very cusp of being blocked for your actions here. Some administrators might have already blocked you for your behavior. You can not edit in this way and expect to remain editing here. If you want to see changes made, edit warring is NOT the way forward. I note that you have begun engaging in discussion. This is good. Please read and follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. I'm not suggesting you have violated either of those, just noting they are important for continued collegial editing here. If you have questions, please feel to raise me by placing a {{ping|Hammersoft}} here on your talk page and I'll be happy to help. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)