Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Penn State Nittany Lions football, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Penn State Nittany Lions football with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Wknight94 ^talk 22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Old Harry's Game, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Old Harry's Game. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blocker, you may be blocked from editing. Uhai (talk · contribs) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Corporate welfare. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Belchfire-TALK 18:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Since you are demanding that I "TALK!", why don't you stop in at the Talk page and join in a conversation? Simply reverting and repeating the same demand is not constructive. Belchfire-TALK 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Guðsþegn. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Fort Saint Charles because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Guðsþegn (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, 216.81.81.80. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - MrX 02:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously a few things about Wikipedia you do not understand. First, you are editing as an anonymous isp - if you want to avoid the suspicion of being a sock puppet, you need to get, or use, an account name. Second, the matter is already under consideration in a dispute resolution procedure, and your edits are usurping that procedure, and are therefore disruptive and verging on vandalism. I am seriously considering having you blocked. PiCo (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking art this personal Talk page, you seem to have a long history of disruptive editing. PiCo (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 216.81.81.80, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lord Rukus, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 216.81.81.80. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Lord Rukus".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lord Rukus}}, paste it in the edit box at , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to US intelligence community does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Wuerzele (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at US intelligence community, you may be blocked from editing. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Kingsland, Arkansas, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 19:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Claflin University page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Anaxial. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lawrence Phillips has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, 216.81.81.80. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.
Please read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines before editing any articles related to the United States government to ensure you are in compliance. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 15:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at ConAgra Foods. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop altering the article to reflect your own opinions about climate change. The report to which the article refers is not about the causes of climate change - it is about "how 100 leading global companies are preparing and positioning themselves" to cope with climate change. You clearly haven't read the report, and your editing is tendentious and disruptive. Keri (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Shepard Smith, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - MrX 20:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please note that, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in citations. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dlthewave (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Theranos, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Mark Esper, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note "the secretary of the Army" is uncapitalized because "secretary of the Army" is preceded by modifier "the", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 18:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Red pill and blue pill, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Arivaca, Arizona. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Steve M (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Steve M:The truth is not unconstructive. Arivaca, Arizona is a hotbed of illegal immigration and drug smuggling, and these facts are well documented. ^[1] Forcing a liberal viewpoint on Wikipedia is not staying objective with the end result of remaining neutral (to paraphrase Wikipedia itself). 216.81.81.80 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(FYI: pings only work when added at the same time as the signature. See here for more info. - wolf 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]