User talk:XRT998

January 2015

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Margaret Sitte without 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; I restored the removed content. 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! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LinkTiger. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Erin Oban seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. LinkTiger (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, Dakotapastor. Just letting you know that I created a new section in Talk:Margaret Sitte to discuss what to call 2015 North Dakota Measure 1 and to avoid an EDITWAR. In the interest of good faith, I have left your most recent change until that discussion is resolved. Let's continue any further discussion on the topic on that page, so others may view it and contribute their opinions, if any have one. —LinkTiger (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Flood geology. Your edits could be interpreted as 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. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Flood geology. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Please see WP:YESPOV. Wikipedia also has academic bias (WP:ABIAS) and should reflect the views of scholarly reliable sources (WP:RS). The case of flood geology, it has been completely discredited by science (geology, biology, biogeography, paleontology, etc). I also recommend reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory and evidence of common descent. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 01:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for edits related to abortion

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]