User talk:Hellomynameisandrew19991999

Please stop

There is no such position as First Lady, and the spouse of the PM is not a politician. Leave things as they are. WWGB (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Tim Mathieson. 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. WWGB (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Therese Rein, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WWGB (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Your recent editing history at Thérèse Rein 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An added note, 3RR applies to editors, not accounts, so editing as another user or as an IP still counts as "your" edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tim Mathieson 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. AussieLegend (✉) 16:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:121.214.55.108

Please see the comment underneath the block notice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing to include blatantly logging out to continue an edit war at Thérèse Rein. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Tiptoety ^talk 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a Talk page is?

Or are you thick? HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Therese Rein, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -TFD (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I too have started a thread about you at ANI, which you may also be interested in looking at. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Anna Burke MP.png

Thanks for uploading File:Anna Burke MP.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:HiLo48, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Yes, I realise that you are already blocked but this edit still warrants a warning. Calling people "stupid retards" will not be tolerated under any circumstances! AussieLegend (✉) 12:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably calling people "thick", as HiLo48 has done to this editor twice now, will not be tolerated under any circumstances either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He gets a lot of provocation from some people. Basket _Feudalist 13:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Ministerial spouses

If you would like the view of someone not involved in this editorial conflict, here it is. I've been watching and feel you're suffering from some misunderstandings. Your primary and multiple-stated reason for pushing the office ofn Australian Prime Minister spouse is that the British PM souses also have such recognition. There are two responses to this though. One, you are correct so let's create Australian spouse office and Two, you are correct the British PM spouse should be deleted. Because there are these two responses to the statement wikipedia created the policy that each such debate has to stand or fall on its own merits only and editorial behavior in similar articles should NOT be used as a justification. This policy is written up as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

The brief version? There are unofficial British PM spouses... so what? That does not matter.

You have to prove that it is important to recognise the existance of the office of PM's spouse without any mention at all of what happens in other articles.

How do you do this? By discussion on a talk page and arriving with your fellow editors an agreement. Sometimes this means compromise, but not always. It is also not a vote. One well reasoned response can defeat one hundred people saying "yes its a good idea" while providing no further reason. You should present your argument by refering to wikipedia policy (of which there are many to choose from), rather than other wikipedia articles, and should be completely without insult to other editors, just as their response to you should be without insult. It is about coming to an agreement with other editors, not beating them in some sort of argument game by shouting longest or loudest. This is written up in WP:Consensus.

Speaking personally you've got no chance at all of getting this included in Aussie PM spouse articles, the reasons against it are too well explained and referenced. There are times where all of us as wikipedia editors have to put the keyboard down and walk away from the argument and accept we are wrong. Some advice can be found here.

I hope this helps Andrew and hope that you have a long history contributing to Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]