User talk:BlewsClews

Welcome to Wikipedia, BlewsClews!
I'm Ammarpad and I want to welcome you to Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is an amazing community adventure which is constantly being edited. There are many different versions of Wikipedia for many different languages, and the English version has articles which are written by volunteers like you and me! Making your first steps on Wikipedia can be hard sometimes, so if you need any help, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page or ask a question on your talk page under a help me tag. Someone will help you soon!

Wikipedia has five pillars which summarise Wikipedia's fundamental principles:
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
 * 3) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
 * 4) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility
 * 5) Wikipedia has no firm rules

Discover more about Wikipedia and how to take part in this project by looking at the links on the right → Or to find a random, short article you can improve.


 * I hope you have a good time here on Wikipedia, whether reading or contributing.

Again, welcome!

November 2018
Your recent editing history at Scott Moe 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.This also applies to Brad Wall. Brad  v 🍁 05:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

American Politics editing
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Canadian federal election, 2019
I've reverted your incorrect reversion of the standings. Note that the numbers I've used are exactly those used by the House of Commons official site Please do not make changes that are not supported by the official source. Also note that Sheila Malcolmon's resignation is effective 2 January, so the numbers will be changing again shortly. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party
What you write does not correspond to the specified sources und you invalidate the link if you have any changes (especially controversial) please in the discussion; it is already an edit-war Braganza (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * again use the disk! Braganza (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm Vaselineeeeeeee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to a Wikipedia article appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, I'm Jonathan Deamer. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Tanya Fir, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Craig Chandler into Tanya Fir. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm Hirolovesswords. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Brad Trost have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Brad Trost 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2021 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

January 2022
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Paul Merriman. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Scott Moe, early life
Hello, You have continually been adding headers to the 'Early Life' section of Scott Moe despite these being removed. It appears that it may be an attempt to give WP:UNDUE weight to some of the information there. Rather than continuing to replace these, please engage in the discussion on the Talk page to work towards a consensus. Other justin (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)