User talk:Anonymousedit19923034
March 2017
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Chris Cuomo 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: Chris Cuomo was changed by Anonymousedit19923034 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.961222 on 2017-03-08T00:41:36+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Warnings
[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Chris Cuomo. 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. Softlavender (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Chris Cuomo 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. Softlavender (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Note
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--NeilN talk to me 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--NeilN talk to me 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Last warning
[edit]Currently, your editing is coming across as if you think your mission here is to insert/reinsert WP:BLP violations into articles. Aside from Chris Cuomo — see the edit warring warning above — I noticed this recent edit on Tim Kaine, where you don't say anything on the talkpage, and you don't pay any attention to Neutrality's edit summary ("Removing; no charges filed as of yet; significance to father is attenuated. Also, did you miss part in source saying "according to a St. Paul Police Department incident report"? There's a reason for this; we don't take allegations & present them as fact"). No, you just put it back, though it's about a different person than Tim Kaine. One more such edit and you'll be blocked. The BLP policy is taken very seriously here. Please click on the blue link and read. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
March 2017
[edit]
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN talk to me 17:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
February 2018
[edit] Hello, I'm Odysseus1479. I noticed that you recently removed content from User:Bishonen without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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.—Odysseus1479 01:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain what this [1] is about? I'd like to think that it's not some form of retaliation for a year-old warning by Bishonen. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. I'd have thought it would have made more sense to vandalize NeilN's page. Just saying. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
GRRRRRRRRRRREAT!
March 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)