User talk:Ncnub

Welcome!

Hello, Ncnub, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi, your edits to HS2 related articles popped up on my watchlist. I just want to make sure you're aware of the WP:TRR (three revert rule) as I don't want you to get reported for edit warring. I mostly agree with your changes at Colne Valley Regional Park and started a section at Talk:Jones' Hill Wood a while ago as I also doubted the link between the woods and Roald Dahl. What I noticed was I could only find discussion on the link between the woods and Roald Dahl after they were threatened by HS2. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the challange is taht there are media artticles fromrm reliable sources that regergate a hs2 related woodland trust bolg post that said it is 'said to of inspired roald dahl' this has then been further exagareted into inspired roald dahl. however, there are many sources that back up the truth that angling spring wood inspired roald dahl, I have linked a few here: 1)https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/uk/bfg-film-stephen-spielberg-release-date-roald-dahl-great-missenden-home-a7148221.html 2)http://www.bucksgeology.org.uk/pdf_files/Walk5_Great_Missenden.pdf?LMCL=XQcTVI 3)https://www.chilternsaonb.org/ccbmaps/450/137/angling-spring-wood.html I would be grateful if you considered how best to edit the Johns Hill wood article.Ncnub (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would be best to raise this at Talk:Jones' Hill Wood. I did create Angling Spring Wood a while ago and added that it inspired Fantastic Mr. Fox. So currently we have two woods claimed to have inspired the story. Unfortunately, the reliable sources have taken the Woodland Trust's word for it and there's not much we can do unless we find a reliable source that disagrees with the Woodland Trust. The Woodland Trust of course would say anything they like to further their own agenda. They have even criticised East West Rail and heritage railways before, while remaining relatively quiet on road building. NemesisAT (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High Speed 2 edit war

Your recent editing history at High Speed 2 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

April 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Your recent editing history at Labour Party (UK) 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 16:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop being so hasty in closing discussions. It's been long, a lot of people have contributed, and the outcome is unclear – give them a chance to respond. — Czello ^(music) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ncnub reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 16:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]