User talk:Correctus2kX

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Paris syndrome, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding information unsupported by provided sources
Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dhòmhnaill
Hi, Thanks for contacting my talk page. Please check out the talk page of the norse-gaels article and we can resolve this there. de Bivort 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

MacDonnell of Antrim
Please stop removing the Ulster-Scots translation. It is cited and relevant. In what way is it misleading? — Jon C.  ॐ  17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm Winner 42. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Church of Ireland with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me!  23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edwina Currie
For discussions on her accent please see following links (or listen to it yourself - it's mild Lancashire mixed with Derbyshire these days) or find the book "Northern English: A Social and Cultural History" for more information. She has spoken about changing her accent over the years, in particular to fit into the Midlands constituency she used to represent, and to sound less "vulgar" as she was criticised in the 80's., , Koncorde (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed this discussion, i would back Koncorde as Edwina Currie does not have a Liverpool accent, she is from Liverpool but she does not have a "Scouse" accent and therefore isn't a notable person with a Scouse accentBabydoll9799 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Eric Bailey Snake People add on
Hi - I have picked up an edit you made on the Liverpool page which automatically replaces Great Depression with Clutch Plague. This is caused by Eric Bailey's add on which replaces Millennial with Snake Person. You might wish to be cautious while editing, or remove or disable the add on while editing, as it will do stuff without you noticing. I have tweeted to the guy that I am not amused. Cheers Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Which picture for "Template:Roman Catholicism" navigation box?
I explained my exact "basis" for wishing to keep the Saint Peters image on the template:Roman Catholic page last week in the discussion here, which was also mentioned on the talk:Catholic Church and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 17:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Dee. 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) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Keegan
17:11, 8 October 2017‎ Correctus2kX (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,580 bytes) (+34)‎. . (Undid revision 804221247 by Govindaharihari (talk) no evidence of this on talk page)

Hi there, as it is a biography of a living person it is up to you to open a chat and not to repalce your edit without an agreed consensus on the talkpage. thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Billy Graham
While Evangelicals are protestants, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Evangelical Christians". See this NGRAM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Billy Graham, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''the referenced term is "fundamentalist Christian". The WP:COMMONNAME is "fundamentalist Christian". I understand your point, and it's both an interesting and valid one, but if you want a change, stop edit warring to impose your view, take it to the article's talk page.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory notice
--John (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at White privilege. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool
Okay, I am going to assume you have completely misread or misunderstand legal and government entities. Firstly, Birmingham does not reference the Met Borough because the Met Borough is the city. It does mention the metropolitan area in the lede however, which consists of Birmingham and its surrounding cities and towns (the equivalent of the Liverpool/Birkenhead Metropolitan area which is mentioned in Liverpool's lede). Secondly, if you look at the Manchester article for instance, it is treated as one and the same because of the self same reasons as I have given for Liverpool (Greater Manchester being a distinct entity to the Met Borough of Manchester which is the City of Manchester). In fact I don't think you will find a single Metropolitan borough which is both a city and unitary authority that differentiates between the city proper and the met borough because in law they are the same thing since 1972 (or in subsequent law). In contrast, Metropolitan Borough of St Helens and Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley are distinct as they are made up of multiple distinct towns of villages falling under a new single authority. There is no single city authority in law, so they are named for something or after something. Koncorde (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cease with the disruptive edits. You have not cited any information that would corroborate your claims, I have explained why above at length. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Your recent editing history at Liverpool 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * I have attempted to discuss this with you, you have instead resorted to persistent reverting and the inserting of unsupported information. Please cease. Koncorde (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Liverpool
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You have not posted anything at Talk:Liverpool in the past three years, but you are continuing to revert the article. If you don't reply, there is a risk you will be blocked for long-term edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Liverpool, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''You have repeatedly ignored the talk page in pushing POV edits. You have been asked for an explanation repeatedly and you have failed to engage with the discussion beyond continuing to make assertions that you do not back up. You have been previously warned for this, and I am asking you to either explain your reasoning and provide an explanation that makes sense.'' Koncorde (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Correctus2kX, can you explain why an administrator shouldn't block you from editing for continuing the war? You still can't say how the borough and the city of Liverpool are different, and nobody agrees with you, but you go ahead regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Page numbers needed for source for White Privilege
Editors can't be expected to go through a whole book to verify the source. -- Doug Weller talk 13:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Alert and warning
If you edit-war again at Wuhan Institute of Virology, I will block you as an enforcement action until such time as I am assured you will not repeat that behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)