User talk:Super-Mac

Rees-Mogg
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
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&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. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
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
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 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
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 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. ---Snowded TALK 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
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&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. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (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. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Number  5  7  18:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)