EggplantSandwich

GRT

Please discuss on the talkpage. Not one of the changes you wish to see is supported by sources. The text is a reversion to the original text of the article, which was seriously damaged by an ip in June. Every word of the current version is sourced, the text you keep reverting to is not sourced. The sources simply do not support that text. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, your edit removed sourced information. For instance, you claimed that a source did not contain data, but it actually does (country of birth data can be found in section 10 of the 2021 census report). Additionally, you changed the lead to state that Roma are defined as recent Romani migrants from Eastern Europe, despite the census data showing that the majority of Roma migrants in England and Wales were born in Italy and 13.9% were born in England. Moreover, in London in 1971, the World Roma Congress advocated for the use of "Roma" instead of "Gypsy" to refer to all Romani people. Historically, the name "Gypsy" has also been used in England to describe Romani people across Europe, not just in England. It seems apparent that the definition and usage of these terms in the UK is more nuanced than your version suggests. However, I have clarified that in the UK, those who identify as Roma are mainly Romani migrants from mainland Europe, while those who identify as Gypsies are mainly Romanichal, Kale, and Scottish Lowland Gypsies. EggplantSandwich (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to discuss on the talkpage. At this moment you are editwarring unsourced information into the text. The reasons it is unsourced are there. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

4 revert rule

You have just performed your 4th revert on the article Gypsy Roma and Traveller People (UK). The policy is that the text should revert to the last consensus version, which was prior to what I believe to be your ip edit on June the 25th. Please self-revert.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (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.