Hello, Cotten134, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you apparently knew some of the victims of this tragedy. My condolences. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - MrX 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page ViralVideoify has been reverted.
Your edit here to ViralVideoify was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/ViralVideoify) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mediran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Winter storm Euclid without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm United States Man. I noticed that you have recently been engaged in an edit war over the naming of December 17–22, 2012 North American blizzard and December 25–28, 2012 North American blizzard. Keep in mind the three-revert-rule. It was decided that the TWC names will not be used on wikipedia and the only mention of these names would be in a redirect to the main article. See Talk:November 2012 nor'easter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season for the discussions. User:TornadoLGS has started a discussion at Talk:December 25–28, 2012 North American blizzard so this can be discussed again (although it shouldn't need to be discussed again). You should join the discussion if you think there is a valid reason that the TWC names should be used. Remember, The Weather Channel is not official so don't try to state that as a reason to use the TWC names in the discussion. Cheers, United States Man (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the above comment as a warning. If you continue the change to the TWC names it may be considered vandalism and you may end up being blocked from editing. United States Man (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Global storm activity of late 2010 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Backtract undo series 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/Backtract undo series 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 template from the top of the article. Biglulu (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Twerking. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. The discussion was not closed; it was relisted. Biglulu (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Your contributions history has revealed that you are making destructive edits to Wikipedia without consensus and against policies. Please read up on proper editing before making any further edits. Biglulu (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Twerking. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rich Farmbrough requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Buggie111 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rich Farmbrough has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted 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}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. j⚛e decker^talk 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Global storm activity of early 2011 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Wikipedians by number of edits, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Please stop creating articles until you have read, carefully, Wikipedia:Your first article. In particular, no more articles that are copies of user pages or pages in the Wikipedia namespace. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was encyclopedic.--Cotten134 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are new here. It's not a good idea to edit the user pages of others, please use the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw they did not have a Userpage.--Cotten134 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Imagine intentionally so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cotten134. I am Buggie111. While looking over your previous edits, I have come across contributions by User talk:75.139.106.179 that look a lot like your contributions. They probably are yours, which is why I want to tell you of the following: Please, in the future, always try to log in. While a minor edit from your IP every once in a while won't hurt the wiki, any conflicts which you get involved in with both your username and ip address could lead to charges of sock puppetry against you. All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, okay, it is just hard to remember to log in sometimes, but I'll remember in the future. And it seems like it would not be sockpuppetry as you say because it is only one registered account. I am not sure that is my IP anyway.--Cotten134 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP's and registered accounts are equal when, for example, they're edit-warring, a user using a registered account and an IP in an arguement is in as much doo-doo as one hwo uses two registered accounts. Glad you understand me. Buggie111 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crap, alrighty then.--Cotten134 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making pointless edits just to up your edit count. Admins don't normally block just for wasting server space, but they will in extreme enough cases. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over 10000 registered users each have over 5000 edits, some over 1000000 edits.--Cotten134 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I'm one of them (over 5,000, of course, not over 1,000,000 - I think only 2 people have done that). What's your point, exactly? I assure you that none of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors got their edit counts to where they are by making pointless test edits to the Sandbox. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]