User talk:X.equilibrium.x

You've got mail
You've got more messages there. BethNaught (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Civil law (common law)
Please stop adding speedy deletion templates to this page which clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. They are not appropriate and will be removed. James500 (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My beliefs are based on the fact that your edits are so preposterous that it is very difficult to imagine them being made in good faith. Plus which, if you get a CSD template removed by an editor with more than 23,000 edits who says it is clearly innappropriate, the next step is PROD or AfD. You do not replace the CSD template which is for blatant hoaxes, which this clearly isn't because it cites a number of respectable textbooks and cites them accurately. I know because I have read them. James500 (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Which edit or edits in particular to you believe to be utterly absurd or ridiculous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X.equilibrium.x (talk • contribs)

Reply: And we also don't re-add templates against consensus. Three people have told you that the CSD template is clearly wrong. James500 (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC


 * Three nobodies have told me that the "CSD template is clearly wrong". If that is the case and you are as you assume to be the superior wikipedia authority in relation to myself, you will look beyond the immediately obvious error of process and understand the reason behind my action. If you are incapable of understanding (as appears to be the case) the meaning behind any action, you are not fit to edit any wikipedia page. OR PERHAPS YOU HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X.equilibrium.x (talk • contribs)


 * I have blocked you briefly to give you time to reflect. If, when the block expires, you still think the page should be deleted, raise the matter via an AfD discussion . &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When the block expires, stop trolling and find something useful to do. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Your recent editing history at Parliament of the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. BethNaught (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)