User talk:Lolm8

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lolm8 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Warburton1368 (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

List of Heart of Midlothian F.C. seasons[edit]

I totally appreciate your effort to improve articles relating to Heart of Midlothian F.C., however your removing valid information such as the war time leagues. Hearts did compete in this period so the information should be included in the article. On another note it does look far better.B S 12:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________

I'm still trying to get to know how everything works etc but re the information on the war time leagues - they aren't competitive league seasons such as the 1938-39 and 1946-47 seasons before and after the Second World War, and they aren't recognised as major honours which is why I removed them.

Also I intend to add more footnotes and references.

They competed in them none the less competitive or not. They aren't major honours that is right but by definition the article cover Hearts seasons not just the competitive ones. It can be handled with a footnote stating that whilst hearts competed in these leagues they weren't accredited as official competitions. Information on war time can be sourced to [1] and [2] Also Victory cup during the first world war.[3]. I also have several books for refs. B S 13:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________

I will footnote information like that in the coming days, perhaps as well as other minor honours.

Just to clarify should still be in the table but a footnote explaining as well.B S 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Economy of Scotland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

philanthropy in Scotland.<ref>Bruce Lenman, ''An Economic History of Modern Scotland, 1660-1976'' (1977</ref>
[[File:North Sea oil platform.jpg|thumb|250px|left|An [[Oil platform|oil rig]] in the [[North Sea]],

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Nordic countries, as "minor" only if they truly 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". Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Heart of Midlothian F.C.. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blethering Scot 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Scotland, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, but surely common sense should also come into effect, though?

Indeed, common sense is the very basis of the policies linked to above; please read them, then please remove all the material you have added which synthesises sources or adds original research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits 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". Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Scotland, you may be blocked from editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Scotland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert immediately or face a block. Can't you grasp this? Your sources do not say e.g. "It is often wrongly interpreted that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK", whether this be true or not. Find a reliable source which says this or otherwise you are simply spouting your own personal opinions, which have no place here. Have you read the policy on original research? I assume either not or you are flagrantly disregarding it. Name-calling that another editor is a "quisling" simply emphasises that you are POV pushing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Pat Fenlon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See [4] Blethering Scot 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Scotland. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. —Darkwind (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly inserted the same material several times despite more than one editor telling you they disagreed with your edit. Instead of just doing it over and over again, open a discussion on the talk page -- or just walk away.

Further, as noted above, you are misusing the minor edit checkbox. If you remove or add content to an article, you must not use the minor checkbox. For example, here you removed an entire sourced sentence. That's NOT appropriate use of the minor edit feature. You can remove the sentence if you think it improves the article, but you must not mark it minor and you should explain your reasoning in the edit summary or on the talk page. Misusing the minor edit feature makes it look like you are trying to hide your changes (since many editors hide minor edits from their watchlist, for example).—Darkwind (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Scotland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Kuru (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Economy of Scotland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. - Vianello (Talk) 08:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Scotland, 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". Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Economy of Scotland, 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". Thank you.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Scotland, 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". Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you have been asked five or six times not to mark non-minor edits as minor but you have continued to do this. I have blocked your account for a month as you have several previous blocks. You get an instant unblock if you can guarantee not to do this in the future. --John (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Edinburgh Derby. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Calling an editor a Sad Cretin is not on, especially when you are edit warring. [5] Blethering Scot 22:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edinburgh Derby. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Blethering Scot 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPFL-stadiums[edit]

That should have the most current data. The number you used was from 2005 and is 10 years old. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Blethering Scot. I noticed that you made a comment on the page 2014–15 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Consistent personal attacks throughout editing career won't be tolerated. Blethering Scot 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2014–15 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Blethering Scot 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Jmorrison230582. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.. Frankly, you should know better. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits 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". A look through your contributions show you mark all edits as minor, including addition of content. These should not be classed as minor edits. Blethering Scot 21:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season, 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". You are fully aware that use of the minor edit check box in this manor is not allowed. Please stop doing this. Blethering Scot 23:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Lolm8. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Lolm8. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Lolm8. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]