User talk:Generald Goldwater

What the heck are you doing?

What the heck? Please self-revert. The discussion is going along fine, so let processes work as intended. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, I'm Happysailor. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to United Russia— 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. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to United Russia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United Russia. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United Russia 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. -- Luk ^talk 13:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I first became aware of your account by seeing a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I examined your editing history, and decided that your editing was not vandalism, and the problems were in fact good-faith editing done without enough experience of how Wikipedia works, so you could not be blamed. However, I have now seen a couple of other things. There was this edit, with an edit summary which gives a very misleading impression of what the edit did. That was either serious carelessness or a deliberate attempt to hide what you were doing. I don't know which of those two it was, but you should be careful in future to avoid doing things like that, because it is likely that other editors will see it as a deliberate attempt to deceive. Also, there is this edit, with an edit summary mentioning what you called "3 RR violation" by another editor, despite the fact that the edit was your own seventh revert on the article. Such a glaring indication that you are doing something which you know full well is against Wikipedia policy is a pretty good way to get blocked. It is very likely that you originally started editing in good faith, with problems because of a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works, but it is clear that you are now beyond that stage, and you need to think very carefully about how you edit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Useful idiot 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: Useful idiot was changed by Generald Goldwater (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952965 on 2018-03-19T02:46:40+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop reverting: you can discuss on the talk page. If you revert again I will block you. JamesBWatson, this editor is still problematic. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]