User talk:Virgosky: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:43, 17 October 2013 editVirgosky (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users920 edits Removed attack.← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:14, 17 October 2013 edit undoHelenOnline (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,295 edits →User warning: new sectionNext edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "]".		This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "]".
	Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)		Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

			== User warning ==

			] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ]] 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:14, 17 October 2013

Welcome!

Hello, Virgosky, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Deb 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn

I see you've been doing some research on Mary Boleyn. Keep up the good work! But please try not to introduce any errors (eg. spelling of "paternity") into existing articles. Deb 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In case it sounds like I'm being pedantic, I'm just trying to make sure that, being a newly-registered user, you don't get mistaken for a vandal. I look forward to seeing more of you on the history pages. Deb 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Catherine of Valois

Great edit! Keep it up. Kaisershatner 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady Anne Stanley

I've set out the argument for saying strict legitimists consider Lady Caroline Ogilvy to be her rightful heir on the talk page. I did include one citation, the url of a message posted on Yahoo Jacobite, in the edit-explanation text when I restored the bit on her to the article recently. While I can understand you may be a little unsure as to how good a citation a message posted on the Yahoo Jacobite group is, the truth is there aren't that many proponents of restoring Lady Anne's heirs to the throne around these days so citations are in pretty short supply. In the circumstances I hope you will find the Yahoo Jacobite message, which was posted by a genuine supporter of the Stanley claim who does regard Lady Caroline as rightful Queen of England, sufficient for purpose. Best wishes, Jess Cully 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Middleton Genealogy

I see you do not agree with her genealogy -- care to put in your two cents about it under the Ancestry issues part of her talk page? Talk:Kate Middleton, the person won't let up and cannot prove beyond certain people that there is a connection to Kate. -- Lady Meg (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge Talk Page

Hi Virgosky,

I am writing as a courtesy to let you know that I moved one of your comments on the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge Talk page. I believe that we can discuss the matter better if your comment and my comment follow one another. Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there you will find that "Martinvl" is a huge fan of Kate Middleton and simply will NOT let up about her PROVEN ancestry needing to be in the article - he would rather put in stuff that, as you know, is UNPROVEN!!! He is quite mad and his approach to Kate's ancestry has been discussed at conferences for Psychiatrists. PLEASE be relentless with him - he HAS to learn that of he cannot persist with this behaviour on an article about the future queen of England. cheers Ted, March 15 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.129.122 (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User warning

Your recent editing history at Edward IV of England 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. Helen Online 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)