Please stop changing the formatting of the number-ones pages. If you're going to make big, sweeping changes to the page, discuss it on the Talk Page first. Number ones lists are set up in this format from 1940 to the present, for albums, R&B singles, dance singles and rock singles and also for various countries.... they all follow the same formatting. Thanks. -- eo22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mewtwowimmer, 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:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I had one more suggestion for you. You posted the following message to Talk:El Salvador:
I'm 13 years old, and I have a nanny who was born in San Rafael, Chalatenango, El Salvador. She's been with my family since my older brother was a few months old. User:Mewtwowimmer 8:28, 31 August 2006 (PCT)
It's great that you have decided to participate in Wikipedia's editing process. Someone with the intelligence you describe on your user page will surely be an asset. However, the message you left doesn't actually serve the purpose of the Talk page. The idea is to discuss ways to improve the article.
For example, if you and your nanny discuss the article and she thinks previous editors left out something important, then what you wrote would make a good introduction to saying, "She was surprised that the article doesn't mention ______. I haven't been successful finding a source to show that this event happened. Does anyone have a suggestion?" Incidentally, you might get her input and work on the articles related to Chalatenango Department in particular. Most of the articles on specific departments are pretty basic, and she might be able to suggest places you could look up on Google and turn into article material. I do that kind of thing with my husband, who is from Morazán.
Update: I went back and looked at your contribution list ... WOW! You've done a lot of good updates already, especially for someone who's only been editing six weeks or so. Hope you don't take the "Welcome" message as an insult after all that work! Here's the wikilink for the article on the San Rafael municipality. It's just one sentence long, so any documentable material on San Rafael will be most helpful. --Lawikitejana04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with the page My Gym Partner's a Monkey on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Squirepants10102:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Mgpampromo_edited.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Apparently, no one so far has given you a formal warning about your December 20 page move vandalism, moving Punk rock to "Cunt rock". Page move vandalism is a pretty serious offense. Consider this a final warning.
I noticed you are from Boston. I am looking for people to join Project Boston in order to clean up and expand wikipedia articles directly reletated to Boston. If you feel like helping out please join up. Markco123:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you proclaiming yourself as 1st in the Wikipediholic Test. I checked over your contributions, and you only have less than 500 edits, many reverted due to vandalism or not citing your work, from this, your score seemed unbelieveable. The highest possible score is about 1038670, which is 4000000 lower than what you had posted.I suspect cheating from you, in which your score will be reverted. Please discuss this matter at the project's talkpage, or on my talk page.
P.S. You will get the elephants! That is, if the score you posted are fake. You are also responsible for posting inappropriate words at the score list.
You edited your userpage earlier today by adding a userbox claiming to be an administrator. This edit has been reverted because you are not, in fact, an administrator. Please explain why you added this userbox and agree not to claim to be an admin again (unless, of course, you eventually become one). Thank you, Newyorkbrad21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Metros23200:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed several false claims from your user page, such as that you created Wikipedia, and several articles, as well as that you can edit any article 100% correctly and never be reverted. That is patently untrue. Please review WP:OWN. Also, it appears you have a recurring problem with false claims. That is generally not tolerated here on Wikipedia. Continuing to act in an inappropriate manner, contrary to our policies, will result in you being blocked from editing. Since you have received several warnings before this, please consider this your final warning. ⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reverting your edits because they were unsourced and unverifiable. Another reason I've been reverting your edits was because some of it is vandalism (referring to edits made on My Gym Partner's a Monkey in which you changed part of the cast list to include Captain Underpants characters and other kinds of misinformation). If you want your content to stay on Wikipedia, then I'd suggest you provide sources. Like the notes on each edit page state, if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Do not try to be disruptive, either. Squirepants10123:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your RfA. You cannot simply include your previously closed RfA. You can create a new RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mewtwowimmer 2 but I strongly recommend you do not do that. It is very clear that the community does not consider you ready for adminship, and repeatedly nominating yourself will not have a different outcome at this time and could been seen as disruption. Please take heed of this advice. Thanks, Gwernol23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your previous RfA says: "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it." Please follow instructions like this. Editing your previous RfA in that way when directly instructed not to is unacceptable and a good example of why the community is not going to trust you to be an administrator. Sorry, but until you can follow basic instructions, you aren't ready. Gwernol23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have chosen to ignore my advice and created another RfA. If you include this on RfA I will remove it and block you for disruption. There is no chance your RfA will pass and wasting the community's time by pushing forward with this just a day after your previous request failed is extremely disruptive. Please do not do this. Gwernol00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption by persistently requesting adminship despite the obvious feelings of the community. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwernol00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you continue to use this page to vandalize and make personal attacks I will extend your block and protect this page to stop your continued disruption. Please understand that you are behaving inappropriately and your continued participation in Wikipedia is hanging by a thread. Gwernol01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|It looks like Misteroonova uses the same IP address as me. When you blocked Misteroonova, '''I''' was blocked also! Of the two users, only Misteroonova has been contributing frequently since April 1. It was my '''older brother''' who created Misteroonova. Please unblock me.}}
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Squirepants101! Jimbo Wales! Swatjester! Tregoweth! Lenin and McCarthy! Pilotguy! Metros232! Angela! Netsnipe! Any administrator! PLEASE! I WAS AUTOBLOCKED!!!!
I agree with Metros232. Your creation of the Bianca Burke -> Kelly Ripa redirect was nothing but vandalism. Please stop or you will be facing a substantial block. Your chances of a successful RfA are being seriously damaged by this sort of nonsense. Gwernol18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued creation of nonsense redirects to Kelly Ripa (Joseph Mateo)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 20 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruption. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwernol23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Part I: Meet the Robinsons. Well, Andre 3000 would voice Frankie the Frog, but he dropped out to work on Class of 3000. Kelly Ripa would voice Tiny the T-rex, but she had to co-host with Regis Philbin. James Earl Jones would voice a talking apple. Laurie Metcalf would voice the 3 Little Pigs. Adam West would voice a ringmaster. Zach Tyler Eisen would voice Wilbur Robinson. Wayne Knight would voice the Big Bad Wolf. According to the IMDB: It's Uncle Dmitri, not Uncle Dimitri! Ethan Sandler would voice Foof. Steve Anderson would voice some clowns. Tom Kenny's wife, Jill Talley, would voice extra frogs. Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Spencer Fox and Steve Zahn were considered for voices, but they couldn't make the final cut. This all came from earlier edits to Meet the Robinsons by various users. Is THAT enough? I hate it when my edits are reverted. I am not Jimmy Wales. I am not Paul Netto. I am not Mewtwo. I am not God. I do not rule the world. Yeesh! Please have the pleasure to unblock me. I think that I've learned an important lesson: NEVER vandalize repeatedly or you will get blocked for good.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Where is all this information coming from? It's no where to be found on the IMDB website for the movie. So why do you add them all to the cast list? Metros23221:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lesson you should have learned is never vandalize, period. You seem to be more interested in adding your own false information than making useful contributions. —tregoweth (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your mentor" is not a reliable source. You must cite reliable published sources (i.e. not blog pages or a web site you made) that show this is true. Even IMDB is not really reliable. Encyclopedias should only contain information that has been published elsewhere. Someone telling you something is not good enough to include information in an article. Gwernol22:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the sort of nonsense that you absolutely cannot add to Wikipedia articles. This is clearly something you made up and its cannot be added to any articles. When your block lifts, if you continue to add this kind of nonsense to articles, or you continue to create nonsense redirects to Kelly Ripa you will be blocked for an extended period of time. Gwernol22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My sources were the edits at the bottom of this comment. According to the IMDb, after a test screening for John Lasseter, chief creative officer of animation at Disney, he suggested a lot of changes to director Stephen J. Anderson. In the next 10 months prior to the release, nearly 60 percent of the movie was re-rendered, adding new story elements and action scenes as well as a diabolic sidekick.
Decline reason:
You cannot use vandalism to an article as a source to replace that same vandalism in the article. As has been explained to you, a source must be independent and published in a reliable place. IMDB does not list any of the people you mention, and many of the characters don't even apear in the film. You cannot add information you've made up to a Wikipedia article. You will not be unblocked. When your block lifts, if you continue to vandalize you will be blocked for a very long time. Gwernol00:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jim Carrey had a choice of voicing the Bowler Hat Guy or play Walter Sparrow in the film "The Number 23", he chose the latter.
The science fair that Wilbur attends is held at Joyce Williams Elementary school. This is a nod to the author of the original story, William Joyce.
Had Andre Benjamin not created Class of 3000, he would have voiced Frankie the Frog.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The IP addresses credited for these edits; 94030218 and 98628730; weren't mine.
You unblock request has been denied, don't add another unblock request or your block will be extended for disruption. I did not say you made those edits: I said you can't use those as "sources" to justify your vandalism. I told you that you cannot add made up information to articles, this is true even if you didn't make it up. You have been repeatedly told this you cannot make these specific edits and yet you have continued to make them. You are not going to be unblocked. Gwernol00:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen! I said that I had never used those IP addresses.
I'm really getting angry! This is the last straw! If you don't prove that the IP addresses credited for the edits above weren't mine, then I am pernamently signing off of Wikipedia! Do you hear me?! Mewtwowimmer00:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then find another reliable source. And don't even dare blackmail us with leaving, because we seriously don't care if you leave after disrupting our processes. —210physicq (c) 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have an account at Uncyclopedia. I would like to strongly apologize for my misbehaviors.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am extremely sorry for repetitive vandalism and sockpuppetry. I have learned an important lesson: Sock puppetry and persistent vandalism would most likely lead to an indefinite block.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
And don't post any more unblock requests. They will be subsequently denied and you will lose the ability to edit this page until your block ends. —210physicq (c) 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I REALLY NEED TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA AGAIN! GIVE ME ONE LAST CHANCE! I PROMISE I'LL MAKE ONLY USEFUL EDITS! I AM JIMMY WALES! I RULE THE WORLD!
Decline reason:
Enough of your useless begging and incessant whining. Congratulations, you just lost your right to edit this page until your block is over. — 210physicq (c) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Stop posting these unblock requests. Like Physicq210, they will be denied and you will lose the ability to edit your talk page until the block is over. Do not try to lie either. Squirepants10100:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given your continued use of sockpuppets and non-constructive editing habits, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. If you wish to make one appeal to this block, you may email me and I will place an unblock request here. Given your previous abuse, I will not unprotect the page. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It's been almost five years, which I believe is a long enough time to request one last chance for an unblock. I promise to not post fake information about film credits and television programming. I hardly even watch TV anymore, so I'm better off listing reliable sources.
Accept reason:
After five years I'm willing to assume good faith and let you have one more chance. Please make sure to read thoroughly the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the ones linked below, to ensure that you understand and follow the rules. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns in your continued Wikipedia editing experience. –Grondemar20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you were very young at the time you caused all the disruption noted above, and you should have matured considerably in the past 5 years, so I'm minded to unblock you. But first, can you give us some idea of what you intend to do here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the same mind as Boing! given the time frame and age, and after receiving your request, came here to ask the same question. Could you give an example or two of edits you'd make if you were not blocked at this time? (Note that this page is no longer protected, you can edit it to answer.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I were able to resume being a contributor to the English Wikipedia, I would only search for and list reliable and/or relevant sources. I no longer care about local TV stations, My Gym Partner's a Monkey or Meet the Robinsons for that matter, and those were pretty much half of my warnings. This is why I abandoned television for almost 5 years. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B. Wilkins, the only Wikis I've edited in the past 5 years are the Spanish Wikipedia (anonymously updating facts and correcting links), TV Tropes (because that website was better suited to my interests) and the extremely incorrect Uncyclopedia (as suggested by another user). The sock puppetry that might match my account is "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". I must admit, I did make EXTREMELY similar edits as some puppets. I'm 18 years old now, and I didn't mean to cheat on that test. I only selected all the answers that described me. I've left the "Monkey" and "Robinson" edit wars behind. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly clear that the content of a video game is not a source for the members of a Pop band, and I can't imagine why you thought that was anything other than a silly edit to make. I wanted to assume good faith, and I was finding it hard. After I arrived at this talk page and looked around, I gave up trying, sorry. Begoontalk02:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that edit was really an "honest mistake", I would seriously suggest that you give WP:COMPETENCE and WP:CITE a good read, because a "sourcing error" like that from a user who says in his unblock request discussion "I would only search for and list reliable and/or relevant sources." isn't very encouraging, in my opinion. Begoontalk03:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to reiterate the above: please don't make edits like that one. Realize that many people would interpret an edit like that as vandalism. You've only just come back after five years; make the most of this opportunity. –Grondemar05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of current Atlantic Records artists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sirah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Yes - you added a reference that doesn't support the claim, and I reverted you. The source you added for the Atlantic records reference looks good though. If you add the citation at the time you add the information it will avoid this kind of thing.
If you didn't make so many damn silly, purely disruptive edits it looks like you can actually contribute if you feel like it. So what's the other nonsense like the Beatles stuff for? What do you get out of that? Begoontalk03:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the EMI units that European regulators forced Universal Music Group to divest was spun off into a separately run company called Parlophone Label Group. It was Parlophone Label Group that was sold to Warner Music Group, NOT EMI Records Ltd. which UMG continues to own. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG
Hello, I'm DouglasCalvert. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Rottweiler 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. Thanks! You seem to have a lot of helpful contributions to wikipedia. What is the point of adding Rottweillers to the rodents category?DouglasCalvert (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the redirect for two reasons; an AfD nomination must go for a full seven days, and as of this point redirection has not even been decided as the main course of action. Nate•(chatter)08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gao Ao may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
//www.thesundevils.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30300&ATCLID=207911728 Arizona State Profile]].
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kim Yoo-Suk may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
'''Kim Yoo Suk''' ({{Ko-hhrm|김유석}} (born 19 January 1982) is a [[South Korea]]n [[pole vault]]er.
Hello, I'm Masem. Your recent edit to the page My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. MASEM (t) 02:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Total Drama (season 5). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. APTN did not co-produce Season Five of Total Drama and it is not airing the show either, so do not put false info into the article.Creativity-II (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit it myself but his page has been protected to prevent vandalism but would someone go in and please correct his birth year? His wife, Tomica, had the wrong year placed on his grave stone so maybe that's why the masses assume 1963 is the correct year of his birth. He was born in 1964. There is even a recent BET interview online of his mother Kathie Wright and his daughter Erica inside their home and they show the obituary which clearly states his sunrise as September 7, 1964. This is terribly insulting to his legacy to have an incorrect year of birth, especially with the Straight Outta Compton biopic now in theaters and Eazy being displayed and introduced to the masses. Augustana333 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Several recent changes you've made to articles have involved changing peak chart figures. I've yet to see a change that was supported by sources. Any time you make a change, you need to provide a citation which supports your edit. If you continue to make unsourced changes (or in this case, changes that go against existing sources), you chance being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a note here or on my talk page. Thank you. — Huntster (t@c)08:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup of the Births and Deaths section of the Days of the Year project is being carried out to ensure that the lists to do not become unmanageably long by removing entries for celebrities with 0-4 articles in other languages. As well as making the lists more manageable, this will help with the globalization effort. Redlinks are automatically deleted and are not in dispute. Check with Deb for further information. Glad to have you back after such a long hiatus away. Yours, Quis separabit?03:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Soft pop. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Soft pop (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is blatant vandalism. You are making some good contributions elsewhere, but you have also recently been blocked for vandalism. If you wish to continue editing here, I strongly suggest you completely abstain from any vandalism in the future. You've been here many years, with some thousands of edits. You know better. End the vandalism. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I thought I would explain further why one of the editors reverted your recent change to the above page. It's a really simple reason - the notability of Audrey Geisel does not and cannot hinge on her relationship with another notable person, as notability is not inherited according to Wikipedia guidelines. So any reference to a possibly more notable relative will always be removed unless there is an absolutely vital reason why it matters in that one instance (that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis though). Thanks, and good editing. Ref(chew)(do)23:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This refers to this edit. If you can find a source for this information, please do. Thank you! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Beatles. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, with this edit you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Begoon talk 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Honorific nicknames in popular music, you may be blocked from editing. 
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Total Drama (season 5). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. APTN did not co-produce Season Five of Total Drama and it is not airing the show either, so do not put false info into the article. Creativity-II (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Template:Captain Planet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Metallica. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2009. 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. Thank you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tangled. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
