User talk:Scorpnorx

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sue Monroe.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Athleek123 23:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nicole Davis (presenter)

The article Nicole Davis (presenter) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. MsFionnuala (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The scorpnorxchannel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The scorpnorxchannel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, regarding some of your recent edits, including those to List of EastEnders characters (1986), Tony Blair and David Cameron - please can you not make these kinds of edits. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN for the reasons why. (I have warned/blocked several IP addresses about this recently, perhaps you are the same person, but if not I apologise.) Thank you. –anemone projectors– 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sue Monroe concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sue Monroe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Sue Monroe

Hello Scorpnorx. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Sue Monroe.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sue Monroe}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ..

Please don't link one article from another more than once - see WP:REPEATLINK. If you prefer to do things your own way please do so somewhere else. Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miliband interview removal

Is there a reason for this removal? I'm quite curious. Blanking without an edit summary is generally seen as bad practice, especially if you are not the first user to do so in the recent edit history. Anyway, I would advise you to post on the article talk page if you do think it should be removed from the article, mostly to prevent yourself from being accused of edit warring --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 local elections

Hi, I have reverted your edit to United Kingdom local elections, 2014 as it is in contravention with how our reliable sources are covering this election and indeed the results themselves. I accept your edit as a mistaken edit in good faith, please do not repeat it. Many Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

Thanks for your edits. Per WP:OVERLINK we do not make repeated links to the same target. I have undone your edits. --John (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gordon Brown. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Davey2010→ ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 36 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for appearing to be an account that only eists to post unflattering photos of living persons against consensus, per WP:BLP. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]