User talk:MacTheSlayer

Your edits on Green political parties

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you appear to be new to editing, so I'd just like to point something out. Please do not add the ideology "environmentalism" to the list of ideologies for green political parties. These parties already have the ideology of "green politics" listed. Envormonetalism is one of the key elements of green politics, therefore it is unnecessary to also include it within this section. For more information please see Green Politics. Thank you for your time. Helper201 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacTheSlayer, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MacTheSlayer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Conservative Party (UK), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Māori Party. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -gadfium 04:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently added content to both New Zealand First and Māori Party, but the source for the first does not support the content you add - it says the party is conservative, not "social conservatism", and does not mention its position on the left-right spectrum. Of the three sources for the second article, two (going to the same page) are dead links, and an archive of the page does not contain the quotes you give. The third source you gave was the party home page. Finally, the item I reverted before as unsourced you re-added without a reference. This is not acceptable.-gadfium 18:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

web.archive.org has now come back online, and I can now see a version of the Māori Party website which does contain these quotes. Why did you not link to the archive rather than give a dead link? And indeed, as I had not asked for a reference for the ideology being indigenous rights, why did you reference that rather than the addition I did want a reference for?-gadfium 04:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Conservative Party (UK). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Once again, please stop adding unsourced "edits". You may face a block if you continue. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to New Democratic Party. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Blue Dog Coalition, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Alexander Levian (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Communist Party

The source you keep restoring does not corroborate the claim, which is something you've done on several pages now. Please don't make changes to the ideology parameter unless they're properly sourced – i.e., when you add sources, they should explicitly state so. Mélencron (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

political position and sources

When possible it's best not to use news opinion pieces or blogs for political positions. Ehat we are looking for is academic books and articles covering the topic at large. WP:RSOPINION.--Moxy (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you because you have many times added political positions to political parties with a source which does not support the content.-gadfium 06:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MacTheSlayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here MacTheSlayer (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)the people who recently just blocked have given no reason for their block. They didn't discuss it. They simply said I had been 'disruptive'. I have cited all my sources. There seems to be no verifiable reason for my block, and therefore, I request an immediate unblocking from Wikipedia. Best wishes, M.[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked a week for changing the political positions of parties without giving a source. Following this you changed left wing to center left. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

August 2017

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Liberal Democratic Party of Russia has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Popular Front (France). Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Conservative Party (UK). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MacTheSlayer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Social Democratic Party (UK). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]