|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
9×25mm Dillon has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
9×25mm Dillon was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_VXhkQkSz4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Natalia Veselnitskaya. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
WikiVirusC. Your recent edit to the page
Natalia Veselnitskaya 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 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. I have made a comment on the talk page
here, feel free to address the comments and add in the proper information after discussion.
WikiVirus
C
(talk)
22:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You have now tried to insert the same material into yet another article: Rinat Akhmetshin; diff with an edit summary describing your edit: "POV wording, distortion of sources, and Daily Caller not a reliable source. Stop.". You might want to slow down, or stop editing these articles for a while :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
HOWEVER:
"email-to-donald-trump-jr-could-be-a-smoking-gun-as-russia-connections-deepen," Natasha Bertrand, etc... ...including that *I* used leftwing sources. So I'd suggest I'm not the one w/the most imbalanced POV.
97.98.86.66 ( talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
14:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Trap music. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Binksternet (
talk)
06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Anthony Bourdain have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links.
Your edit
here to
Anthony Bourdain was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMhKzXik9c&t=78s) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
06:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Open Society Foundations. 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.
Prolog (
talk)
11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
help desk. Thanks.
JimVC3 (
talk)
20:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
help desk. Thanks.
JimVC3 (
talk)
20:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please note precisely what you opine as being "unconstructive" about adding a {{cn]} ? I found it rather unconstructive for you to remove a citation needed instead of providing a citation -- in accord with WP guidelines. (especially as the article is in a shambles, marked above the Lede as needing essentially a "total re-write," and my edits attempted to fix many self-contradictions within the article. It was even more unconstructive as you did not leave any Constructive Criticism, (similarly, you replied on yur own personal Talk page to someone who left you a note that he found your edit "unconstructive" by asking him to clarify why he reverted your edit.) and you left just a vague note for me that I think that was unconstructive. Pray tell, what is "unconstructive" about trying to get a source for an uncited claim -- a claim that CONTRADICTS (as I noted in the "CN" below) CITED parts of the article itself & contradicts several more editors ( 'consnsus' who agre w/me) who noted in the Talk page the same thing(s) that I noted in the following "CN"?
"cn|need modern sources saying it's: #1 a "theory" not a hypothesis, #2, that it's one, not multiple theories/hypotheses (as "multiple" appears to be the consensus in the Talk page), and #3 that the theories/hypotheses (unless you have sources meeting WP:V/WP:RS/etc editing guidelines which say that only 1 such theory/hypothsis exists...) are ALL "fringe" according to experts." [2]
Thanks if you can tell me how my edit violated WP's WP:V, etc, rules, because I do believe that YOU violate WP rules by removing a "CN" instead of providing a source (or at least stating an Articulable Reason why no citation would be needed, when others have tagged that article & pleas show me people on the Talk page who disagreed that this IS "multiple" hypothses, and "hypotheses," not "theories," or etc) -- but perhaps you merely acted hastily & didn't read the article or Talk page to see the CONTEXT of why several editors in th Talk page agree w/me that it is not one theory, nor even a theory (as the title itself was even originally "pole reversal theory," but others who came before me agreed...it is not a "theory," it's a hypothesis -- and SEVERAL hypotheses, some of which (from professional, published science journals, or from a professor who worked with Albert Einstein, as Einstein wrote the Foreword to the professor's Pole Reversal hypothesis book...) had more merit than other hypothesies (from occultists/psychics/other amateurs). 97.98.86.66 ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as
Joseph Mifsud for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you. --
Pilaz (
talk)
15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
9×25mm Dillon has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
9×25mm Dillon was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_VXhkQkSz4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Natalia Veselnitskaya. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
WikiVirusC. Your recent edit to the page
Natalia Veselnitskaya 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 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. I have made a comment on the talk page
here, feel free to address the comments and add in the proper information after discussion.
WikiVirus
C
(talk)
22:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You have now tried to insert the same material into yet another article: Rinat Akhmetshin; diff with an edit summary describing your edit: "POV wording, distortion of sources, and Daily Caller not a reliable source. Stop.". You might want to slow down, or stop editing these articles for a while :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
HOWEVER:
"email-to-donald-trump-jr-could-be-a-smoking-gun-as-russia-connections-deepen," Natasha Bertrand, etc... ...including that *I* used leftwing sources. So I'd suggest I'm not the one w/the most imbalanced POV.
97.98.86.66 ( talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
14:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Trap music. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Binksternet (
talk)
06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Anthony Bourdain have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links.
Your edit
here to
Anthony Bourdain was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMhKzXik9c&t=78s) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
06:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Open Society Foundations. 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.
Prolog (
talk)
11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
help desk. Thanks.
JimVC3 (
talk)
20:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
help desk. Thanks.
JimVC3 (
talk)
20:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please note precisely what you opine as being "unconstructive" about adding a {{cn]} ? I found it rather unconstructive for you to remove a citation needed instead of providing a citation -- in accord with WP guidelines. (especially as the article is in a shambles, marked above the Lede as needing essentially a "total re-write," and my edits attempted to fix many self-contradictions within the article. It was even more unconstructive as you did not leave any Constructive Criticism, (similarly, you replied on yur own personal Talk page to someone who left you a note that he found your edit "unconstructive" by asking him to clarify why he reverted your edit.) and you left just a vague note for me that I think that was unconstructive. Pray tell, what is "unconstructive" about trying to get a source for an uncited claim -- a claim that CONTRADICTS (as I noted in the "CN" below) CITED parts of the article itself & contradicts several more editors ( 'consnsus' who agre w/me) who noted in the Talk page the same thing(s) that I noted in the following "CN"?
"cn|need modern sources saying it's: #1 a "theory" not a hypothesis, #2, that it's one, not multiple theories/hypotheses (as "multiple" appears to be the consensus in the Talk page), and #3 that the theories/hypotheses (unless you have sources meeting WP:V/WP:RS/etc editing guidelines which say that only 1 such theory/hypothsis exists...) are ALL "fringe" according to experts." [2]
Thanks if you can tell me how my edit violated WP's WP:V, etc, rules, because I do believe that YOU violate WP rules by removing a "CN" instead of providing a source (or at least stating an Articulable Reason why no citation would be needed, when others have tagged that article & pleas show me people on the Talk page who disagreed that this IS "multiple" hypothses, and "hypotheses," not "theories," or etc) -- but perhaps you merely acted hastily & didn't read the article or Talk page to see the CONTEXT of why several editors in th Talk page agree w/me that it is not one theory, nor even a theory (as the title itself was even originally "pole reversal theory," but others who came before me agreed...it is not a "theory," it's a hypothesis -- and SEVERAL hypotheses, some of which (from professional, published science journals, or from a professor who worked with Albert Einstein, as Einstein wrote the Foreword to the professor's Pole Reversal hypothesis book...) had more merit than other hypothesies (from occultists/psychics/other amateurs). 97.98.86.66 ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as
Joseph Mifsud for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you. --
Pilaz (
talk)
15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |