User talk:Sociald43

hey hey hey !! this is my talkpage !!

White British
You should not have moved that page, and I will seek to have the move reversed. The article is specifically about the Census classification which had the specific title "White British". It is not about "White people in Britain" in any general sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * but i kept the article, and created a new article "White British" about all white people in british both original and foreign  s ociald43  (TALK) 11:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It causes a lot of work for other people when new editors come in and mess things around so that they make no sense. Please stop and think first.  Learn how to edit constructively here, or else you may be blocked.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked ?! who said that my actions were wrong, as a established user i have the right to do constructive edits , even if you dont like them  s ociald43  (TALK) 11:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are not "constructive". The content of the "White British" article has been discussed on the article talk page, and the consensus is that it should be concerned solely with the Census category.  You did not raise the possibility of moving the page on that talk page, as you should have done.  So far as I can see, you have been "established" here for all of 12 days.  I suggest you learn more about how to edit constructively before trying to make any more major changes.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at White British shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your edit warring. The scope of the article is clear. If you wish to make such changes, you need to discuss them on the article's talk page. Edit warring is liable to be regarded as disruptive editing, and to get you blocked if you continue. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at English people, you may be blocked from editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at English people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Please discuss this on the talk page. Begging is not a valid means for retaining your edits.'' Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)