User talk:CAWyatt

October 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2020 London mayoral election. 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. 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 losing your editing privileges. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is my change that is being repeatedly reverted. And the reasons given are factually inaccurate:

1, I've read the talk page. There is no 'consensus'.

2, The reason given of Benita not reaching the 5% threshold is factually inaccurate.

3, My suggested change mirrors YouGov's standard formatting. As I understand it, matching primary sources is the rule of thumb on Wikipedia.

I strongly suspect that my change is being reverted for politically motivated reasons. I would however be very happy for an admin to come in, look at the situation, and make a ruling.

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAWyatt, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CAWyatt! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Siobhan Benita Speaking.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siobhan Benita Speaking.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]