User talk:Amstacey

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Irpen 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. abakharev 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Victory Day (Eastern Europe). using TW

May 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victory Day (Eastern Europe). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. G1ggy ^{Stalk - Talk - Chalk} 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoD2 link

I interpret that text as agreeing with what was discussed on the talk page. If you can find a better link, go ahead, but do NOT use the answers.com link, as it is a Wikipedia mirror (which is of no value here, obviously). Thanks. G1 gg y ! 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at QAnon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 05:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"American right-wing conspiracy theory"

That phrase means that it is a conspiracy theory that is only believed in by members of the far-right, and that it started in and is primarily believed in America.

It does not mean that it is a theory about a conspiracy by the far-right, nor that its claims only concern America.

May I ask why you were confused about this? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm British and have followed Q since 2017 (like many across the world). I have seen enough Q posts and proofs of what they have predicted to believe it is not a theory. Nor would I class myself right wing, but left of centre, with belief in a universal health care scheme (like the NHS) and nationalisation of the utilities. I would be considered to have some right wing views too. I am against radical Islam for one and against open borders. Watch this to gain some insight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z15Xt1vGXns&feature=youtu.be

Amstacey (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QAnon's claims are unmitigated bullshit. I've blocked plenty of users for general incompetence for failing to understand that, and probably would have had I seen this response when it first came up.

Do not edit any article relating to politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]