User talk:Client5

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to George Ezra 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: George Ezra was changed by Client5 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958702 on 2016-01-02T00:11:16+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George Ezra. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Miranda Hart

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the Miranda Hart article, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You may find our linking guidelines helpful in this regard. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! CatcherStorm ^talk 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to George Ezra. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Chip Fields 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: Chip Fields was changed by Client5 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867312 on 2016-01-17T19:00:46+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winehouse image

The Winehouse image you have uploaded is small in scale and shows only her face, and is not befitting of a article that has Good article status. The current image has consensus on the page hence it has remained. There also appears to be a possible copyvio issue with the image you uploaded. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 3:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Amy Winehouse with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Amy Winehouse replaces a photo with some text and no photo at all. It is therefore disruptive and has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please review Wikipedia:Images and related pages. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at Amy Winehouse 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 article's 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sia Furler. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Materialscientist (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:RyanTQuinn. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Qzd (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]