User talk:Redd Foxx 1991

Redd Foxx 1991, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Redd Foxx 1991! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Please stop "correcting"--"twenty" requires no correction. It's perfectly fine and it's been discussed on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please stop. You've been reverted three times now. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —David Levy 05:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your continued reversion of the number of dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School goes against Manual of Style guidelines concerning the agreement of compared quantities within a sentence, either both have to be spelled out or both have to be rendered as numerals. Shearonink (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redd Foxx 1991, you also need to read up on WP:3RR to understand why you were blocked. After you first changed "twenty" to "20" and your change was reverted, you proceeded to override other editors five times with five reverts of your own: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th. This is known as edit warring and a clear cut violation of the WP:3RR rule, hence you need to read up those policies before you return to editing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. WP:MOSNUM. Also consider that you've been blocked because od edit-warring. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Weren't you just blocked for this exact same thing? - Mr X 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers as words

Hi. I notice that you are changing many numbers written as words to digits (e.g. I noticed this one, and then checked your edit history). Could you please read Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words and appreciate that it is not wrong to write something like "fifteen"? Also, common sense should prevail in some types of articles that favour numbers as words: for example historic articles, or articles with a lot of written-out numbers already in the text (to which the occasional number as a digit can appear jarring to the flow). Thanks in anticipation of your consideration of this issue. Cheers. GFHandel ♬ 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Eenie Meenie, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ironic (song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Daily Mail. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The Clarification Needed tag is there for a reason, please don't just remove it without dealing with the issue contained in the tag. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ariana Grande, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2000 Years: The Millennium Concert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

So when I see in Wikipedia:Recent Changes that someone has edited Sodomy laws in the United States, I clicked on the link expecting a highly inappropriate vandal. Imagine my surprise when I found it was a constructive edit! Keep up the good work! Howicus (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hot August Night, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keyed Up, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stranger in My House (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Sagging (fashion). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oboe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page For All We Know (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Xylophagia, Human Clay, There's Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966–1969, McJob, Mick Jagger, and so forth, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Parity (mathematics), Integer, and Awesome God, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]