Theowrig

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Parliament of the United Kingdom. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. : Noyster (talk), 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Parliament of the United Kingdom. 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. No-one except you thinks it needs to be bigger, so stop. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Theowrig, I'm sorry to see that you seem still to be waging an "edit war" over the images in the Parliament and House of Commons articles. If you find other editors disagreeing with your actions, you really need to either drop the matter or start to engage in discussion using edit summaries and talk pages, instead of repeatedly reverting and counter-reverting. Otherwise, a referral to administrators cannot be far away. With regards: Noyster (talk), 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion over the House of Commons diagram

I suggest you visit the talk page for the House of Commons article, where there is a discussion on the form the diagram should take. To prevent an edit war, I won't revert your edit back until there is an agreement. JackWilfred (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created a version of the diagram that I believe is a compromise. Check the talk page to see my rationale. Also remember to use the four tildes in order to sign your talk page contributions. JackWilfred (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, templates take time to update on various pages. I've reverted it back, and it should update on the page for North Down soon. Sometimes it has updated but your browser has an old template cached, give it time. JackWilfred (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)