User talk:GolfFan1

Welcome!

Hello, Lorcanmorris, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lorcan Morris, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lorcan Morris

The article Lorcan Morris has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Dawie van der Walt. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 22:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at Lorcan Morris. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Drm310 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lorcan Morris, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lorcan Morris for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lorcan Morris is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorcan Morris until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling Springs

Please stop adding Mr. Morris to the Boiling Springs article until there is an article in mainspace for him. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: GolfFan1, it is still unacceptable to add your name to the Bolling Springs article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Dawie van der Walt, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Boiling Springs, South Carolina 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GolfFan1 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also - write the article first before you start adding links to it in other articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rocco Reed have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 17 January 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 Donald Trump. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Steve Patton has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Steve Patton was changed by GolfFan1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.93475 on 2018-09-28T17:53:27+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

The IRC conversation was getting too chopped up.

While on the face of it, Morris might pass some of the criteria at NGOLF, the earler deletion discussion determined that he did not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Activities since then show no reason to think the earlier determination should be reconsidered. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Alex Cohn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Jennifer Bermingham—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 03:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]