Hello, I'm Brainiac245. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they 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. Brainiac245 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hogwarts staff. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2019 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2019 (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.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to remind you about WP:TALK. In the future, please follow the talk page guidelines such as creating a new section, using a subject/headline, and signing your posts using (~~~~). Thanks! FunksBrother (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Filippo Sabetti have been undone because they 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. CLCStudent (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Dear CLCStudent, my only goal was to ask a question about sourcing in relation to Wikipedia's page on Professor Sabetti. It seems to me that the appropriate place to ask that was in the Talk Page. I am therefore not convinced that the deletion of my question was truly necessary. I know it is possible for Wikipedia editors, myself included, to take deletions of their edits excessively personally as in the case of Simple English Wikipedia's deletion of its page on Ben Shapiro. So I hope I give no offence, I'm Canadian that's how I spell it, in defending my question. I have in the past been temporarily banned for disruptive editing for what was ,in actuality, an honest mistake on my part. So it would help immensely, if it were explained to me why my question was inappropriate. Thank you. 198.200.115.29 (talk)[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.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Naked and the Dead. 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. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2019 (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.

For the record, I felt (and still feel) that General Cumming's reason for assigning Hearn to command the platoon as given in the book was something relevant to the page. If you disagreed then you could easily have amended the page, as you did, without proclaiming it vandalism. I fail to see how mentioning a fictional character's motivation for an action he undertook a novel, wherein said motivation is explicitly given is vandalism. It seems to me that you have simply threatened me with loss of editing privileges because you knew it was something I had heretofore expressed concern about. Considering that I was once temporarily deprived of editing privileges for what was ultimately revealed as an overreaction to an honest mistake on my part, I take exception to your doing that. Maybe I was wrong to have included relevant narrative information in the plot section of The Naked and the Dead, I can't fathom why I would have been but sure maybe I was. And if that were the case, there is a place to debate the worthiness of its inclusion and that is in Article's Discussion page. If you would like, I am perfectly willing to address your point in Talk:The Naked and the Dead but to suggest that I should be blocked from editing in response to mentioning why Cummings was punishing Hearn as described by Norman Mailer in the book simply undermines Wikipedia as a project. I realise that I may be construed as being less than civil in this response. i hope that you do not interpret it in that way but I must anticipate the possibility. To my knowledge you are a good Wikipedia editor and are entitled to the same respect and courtesy everyone else is. I fear however that I cannot downplay or underemphasise what I have just told you. The prospect of getting blocked from editing is one that I, as a Wikipedian, take extremely seriously. Editing Wikipedia's page on Phyllis Schlafly to call her a traitor to her gender is vandalism. Editing Wikipedia's page on Canada and the United Nations to say "the UN does not matter" is vandalism. Pointing out that General Edward Cummings was punishing Hearn by having command Croft's platoon in The Naked and the Dead and that Croft was pleased by Henessey's death in the same novel, both of which the book explicitly says is not vandalism. It is the incorporation of relevant information. I fear this response may be overly strongly worded, and yes I know I said that in this same response earlier, but I still believe the points it makes are necessary ones especially considering that getting blocked from editing is on the table. And that is not something which can be taken lightly. Best of luck in your Wikipedia editing. ~~

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timothy Sandefur, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 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) 01:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 198.200.115.29! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 198.200.115.29. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timothy Sandefur".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Doctor Doom in other media has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. PritongKandule-✉️📝 04:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter published an article after Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer came out explicitly discussing if Fox would discontinue its plans for a third Fantastic Four movie after that film’s failure. https://web.archive.org/web/20071012001630/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3if727c623f03c782b8ad564866c828796 ~~