User talk:Super-Mac
|
Rees-Mogg
[edit]I wish apologists like you had at least the courage of your conventions, rabble rousing with one cliam, then when it doest work out or you have to deliver, cutting the feet under anybody that cares to remember. That you are using a throw-away account and aiming for second mover advantage speaks volumes for the lack of balls; Im sure I can work it out from the edit history. But anyway, you are quite wrong on your substantive claims, such utter nonesense as they are. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- So now your throwaway acount has three reverts by me. Well done, but water of a ducks back, and I dont edit mid-week anyway, so basically, get bent. Ceoil (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Jacob Rees-Mogg 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. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Hi Super-Mac, and thank you for your contributions! I noticed your article Gammon (insult) and I think it’s a good candidate for Did You Know. DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on to the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. Learn all about it here "DYK for Newbies." I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join other people who enjoy editing conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where you can can meet new colleagues and get answers to burning questions. I hope to see you there! – Lionel(talk) 06:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Wreathgate for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wreathgate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wreathgate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- BOD -- 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Wreathgate for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wreathgate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wreathgate (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ---Snowded TALK 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
BLP
[edit]
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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.
August 2018
[edit]Your recent editing history at Jeremy Corbyn 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. Seraphim System (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Number 57 18:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)