Hello, Alfie Gandon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GAB^gab 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GAB, I'd seen some of these already but I'll take a look at the rest. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hope you've enjoyed your experience so far. GAB^gab 21:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfie Gandon! 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 Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeju uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-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 edited Tokugawa shogunate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tosa, Satsuma and Chōshū (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-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 edited Irish slaves myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stormfront (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 3rd millennium page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report 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]

The existing citations support my change, check the ages. Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alfie Gandon. Voting in the 2016 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the 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 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.

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. WCM_email 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but feel you've copied and pasted this, WCM. It's me who's been asking you to discuss things this past while, remember? Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected British Empire so you all can discuss without disrupting the article. However it's clear to me that much of the edit warring has originated with you. It doesn't matter how much you believe your preferred version is correct, or supported by consensus, the back and forth editing is disruptive. Use the talk page, don't continue to revert. If consensus cannot be reached, seek dispute resolution. This is a kind reminder that if you continue to edit war after the protection expires, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks for your understanding — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your course of action, but I'm not happy that I'm the only editor you've seen fit to caution. I have used the talk page, more than most if you'd taken the time to check. Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD, you were bold, you were reverted, you then use the talk page to get an agreement to the changes. If you can't get agreement then you raise an RfC to get other editors involved and you can also look at dispute resolution. What you don't do is simply say I'm right and impose your edits over long standing consensus based solutions. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and there's more at issue here than how long this tag-team have enjoyed their consensus. For example, what solution is being defended with this revert: [1] Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then add WP:NPA to your reading list. Editors will disagree with you, deal with it on the talk page ----Snowded ^TALK 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked you that question was because I don't understand how you can describe that revert as reflecting a long-standing consensus-based solution. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That relates to a second issue you seem to have on several articles, namely style. I reverted one sent of changes not because they were wrong, but because they did not read as well as the original. The revert you referenced is another like that. Again the solution is to go to the talk page. It won't help if you edit war over substantive issues, it will just incline more editors to press the revert button. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style wasn't the reason given for the revert (linking sovereign state was), and I did go to the talk page: Talk:British_Empire#Unconstructive. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is not enough to go to the talk page, you have to gain consensus there BEFORE you remake a contested edit ----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 4 January 2017 (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 of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. Thank you. WCM_email 19:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'someone', do you mean you? I'm afraid your quest to right great wrongs has fevered your imagination somewhat, WCM. Not guilty. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 at Rodrigo Duterte 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.
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 at Irish slaves myth 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. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypocrisy is nauseating. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:33, 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 violating WP:HOUNDINGApollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We mightn't get along, but I must caution you; Fyddlestix has reported me for edit-warring, and honour will surely compel them to follow that with a report about you. Stay free, a chara. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to fear. I have done nothing wrong it is YOU who are in the wrong. Enjoy being blocked. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you weren't edit-warring at some point in the recent past? And are you really allowed to block people? Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more revision and I will report you for violating WP:Wikihounding Apollo The Logician (talk) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]