User talk:Gerrytlloyd

Must have references

The material you added was not sourced. You must add references, especially to those talking about living people. See WP:VERIFY. Bgwhite (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You again added no source at Murder of Anni Dewani. You MUST add a source. In addition, most blogs are not reliable. See WP:BLOGS. Bgwhite (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide reliable references and do it in a neutral point of view. For example, you wrote:

Removal of the jury system made it easier for judges to imprison people who rebelled against apartheid. Things remain as the Nationalists left them, but with optional additions to 'compensate' for the lack of jury (the existing rulers might likewise enjoy the ease with which undesirables can be detained?)

You gave this ref. The ref never mentions "apartheid", "Nationalists" or "compensate". The ref does not back your sentence. There are also other cases where statements are not backed by their refs. Also, you need to use neutral language. Saying "gangsters", "flimsy" and "unscrupulous" are not neutral. Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have got to stop adding this info everywhere. I think you are upto adding the info into 7 articles. You clearly have an agenda, especially evident in your earlier drafts. Wikipedia is not a place for a person with an agenda. Just plain stop. Any additions of this material by you will be reverted. If you continue to add the material, you will be blocked. Bgwhite (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to four articles and only pasted the same, small edit into two of them. The other two edits were completely different from those, and from each other. I admit to pasting copies on three Talk pages too, but assumed that they could be deleted without incident, if necessary. Apologies for that. As to content, I have added up to 11 references per edit, which is a much higher density than in the other sections of the articles I edited. I respected your criticisms about 'neutrality' and made corrections in that regard. I would like to edit the articles again. I believe that the editor who blocked me totally has an "agenda" - he is from Sweden, where there are people who are very angry about the subject matter that I used in my illustration of a problem in South Africa. I believe he has twice removed my entire edit from 'BBC Panorama' without comment or guidance.

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Panorama (TV series) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Keri (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intention now was to undo the BBC Panorama edit of a few hours ago, but I am too late. Thank you for the information. This morning I was blocked after making a previous edit, but without any explanation or previous advisories. A superior unblocked me but I could not get advice on how to make good progress.

March 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Murder of Anni Dewani, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Most of your edits are marked as minor edits. Most of your edits are not minor edits. Please read the minor edit guideline. Repeatedly marking edits as minor edits is sometimes taken as an effort to avoid accountability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Unsourced material and original research

Please don't add unsourced material to Murder of Anni Dewani, as you did here. Editorializing and original research (=drawing your own conclusions, that no reliable source has drawn), as you did here, is also not allowed. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]