Hello, MrJ567, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 06:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the next time you revert me fixing something blatantly against site guidelines that you did, you're going straight to ANI about it. I feel it's fair to tell you at least this, but I will not post anything else here, I promise. Remsense ‥ 论 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are bound and determined to continue this petty little vindictive against me. I'd be happy to report you for harassment as well, so keep that in mind before you go running to the actual administrators of this site. It's abundantly clear that I'm not the only editor who shares this opinion of your conduct. MrJ567 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2024 United States presidential election in Indiana shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrJ567 I am a Republican I follow the Consitiution The VP or a members of the Supreme Court usually Swears in cabinet members I don't usually rush to judgment like some people on here it's only the first day. And I see alot of Rushing. If he was already in right now his picture Would be on the State Department Website, and the VP and The President have a big party for him for beginning his time as SOS. Thank you for your service and I look forward for your responce. 2600:1004:A031:5523:74ED:D5B:7E7D:2C9B (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every Goverment official has to take the oath of office just like Senators and the Reps do on January 3rd and the President and Vice President Does on January 20th they can't start till they take the Oath. And just between you and me. I see you been in some Wars yourself. I follow every C-SPAN video and I watch the US Senate all the time. If you would like to know more about the goverment check out my youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:A031:5523:74ED:D5B:7E7D:2C9B (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 08:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]