User talk:FrMurphy1798
Welcome
[edit]
|
Regarding your edits to Operation Flavius
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
February 2015
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Operation Flavius, you may be blocked from editing. Murry1975 (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 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.
1RR which you have breched on Troubles articles
Murry1975 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Van Morrison, 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. NeilN talk to me 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Irish article guidelines
[edit]Please refer to the Manual of Style guidelines here and more specifically here before you perform any more edits on Irish articles. They'll keep you right in determining how things should be described/labelled. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Graham (Irish Trotskyist)
[edit]Hello FrMurphy1798,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Peter Graham (Irish Trotskyist) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.