User talk:Harperson123

Ed Balls

Harperson123 (Hattie?), do you have any proof that Ed Balls is a Catholic? Wereon (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he said in an interview for the BBC about his Catholic faith, but then again I am unsure. ed davey however is a Christian.

Well, good for Ed Davey, but I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything. Regarding Balls, you'd need to find a reliable source to cite before you put something like that in. Wereon (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Davey

Hi. If you have a source then please quote it. We cannot accept unpublished facts like "he said...", we need a reliable source to confirm what was said. Road Wizard (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Template:Thatcherism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that our policy on living persons means that the king of information you are repeatedly adding must be cited to sources of the highest quality- this is for the dignity of the person themselves and to protect Wikipedia from potential legal action. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR note on Template:Thatcherism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Thatcherism . Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Harperson123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Iain Duncan Smith, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. If you think a template should be deleted, please follow the WP:TFD process. Arbitrarily blanking templates without discussion will only lead to more warnings. Road Wizard (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Iain Duncan Smith, you may be blocked from editing. Road Wizard (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested to you above, there is a legitimate way to request deletion of the template. Follow correct procedure and everything will be okay. Road Wizard (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Samantha Cameron, you may be blocked from editing. Robofish (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a template

If you think that a template should be deleted then the best way to get started is to follow the Templates for Discussion process. Read the page I linked to, follow the instructions and you will start a deletion discussion. During the discussion other editors will state whether they agree or disagree with your proposal. If the balance of the discussion seems in favour of deletion then the template will be deleted.
Discussions are judged on the weight of the arguments, not the number of voters. For example, your comment in the subject line that it isn't "fair" to keep the template when similar ones have been deleted is weak (Wikipedia isn't particularly interested in fairness) while stating that the template breaches particular guidelines and policies is extremely strong.
As you have identified that similar templates have been deleted you may want to check if there was a discussion for them. If there was then the arguments for deletion used there may be equally applicable in this case. At the very least reading previous discussions will help you get a feel for how best to phrase yourself to get your point across. Road Wizard (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Thatcherism

I don't have an opinion either way about the changes that you're wanting to make on the template, but you really need to start using the talk page. Multiple editors have reverted your changes, strongly suggesting that consensus is not to include your edits. At this point, you need to work on the talk page to get that consensus changed. Otherwise, you're just going to continue to be reverted.

Also, I noticed some sourcing problems in your edit. For example, this "After I met Mr. Speaker at a parliamentary outreach service, Bercow told me he admires Thatcher and was a Thatcherite" is considered WP:OR, and is not acceptable as a source. Same with "If you are going to put Americans, Reagan must be No.1 on the list!" If you cannot find verifiable, reliable sources that state something, you can't include it in WP. That is especially true with BLP, which this template, as it mentions some living people, needs to follow. Ravensfire (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Twelfth Doctor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 00:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.