Hello, Ratemonth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk - 13:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

'undoing unexplained changes' - ??? References to authoritative sources of the Constitution of Moldova, as well as, legislation of Transnistria, Legislation of Morldovy are ... Read them please... Cancel your disposal, as unfounded. Regards, -- 217.19.208.110 ( talk) 13:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply

My edit to the episode list on the Regular show is consistent with statements made on Deviantart and twitter from J.G. Quintel himself and Benton Connor. The script for Parental Controls leaked on a puppet account of J.Q. Quintel, "MightyBooshFan." Please don't re-edit my posts claiming vandalism. Thank you. Philip.K.Decker ( talk) 03:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

In a recent edit to the page The Sontaran Stratagem, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I recently found in the UNIT article where you removed the cited source for a lengthy passage and replaced it with a "citation request" tag, attaching an edit summary reading, "removing non-canon fansite spam." This last, unfortunately, is almost completely inapplicable to the situation. A fan site (by the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club, to be precise) posted the complete text of a licensed Dr. Who novel, Who Killed Kennedy, originally published by Virgin Books in 1996, all of which was stated (well, you do have to know or at least be able to figure out what "nzdwfc" stands for, as you obviously did, and that WKK is a novel) in the removed cite (also present—the last time I checked, which was quite a while back, I admit—are new annotations by the author). Of course, "the canonicity of spin off fiction is unclear," but the point is that this is not "fansite spam"; anyone reading this article is going to have a much easier time finding that posted text than a physical copy of the book, and the fact that the site on which it has been posted is a "fan" one is irrelevant to the nature of the material under discussion. Furthermore, the novel IS the source for the passage that remains in place, connecting the events of Remembrance of the Daleks with the formation of UNIT. The idea may have been in the minds of the creative team at the time, but David Bishop's novel is where it was first stated outright in something that wasn't pure fancruft. Nobody is ever going to come up with an alternate citation that is any more acceptable under Wiki regs unless the connection is specified in on-air Who dialogue (also, doesn't the word "spam" refer to content more so than the source?). You should either delete the entire passage or leave the cite up with it. -- Ted Watson ( talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Sam Dimitrijevic has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The recent edit you made to Sam Dimitrijevic constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Chihuahua has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Thingg ^{⊕ ⊗} 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Susan Combs. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Huntthetroll ( talk) 06:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

That article does say he will run and I have included the quoted text from the article below.

"Lots will happen between Election Day 2008 and Election Day 2012, but if Obama loses Tuesday, his one time rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, immediately becomes a prohibitive favorite for the 2012 Democratic nomination.

Things are not as clear on the GOP side if McCain loses, however.

"Thin bench," Dan Bartlett, the former longtime adviser to President Bush, said recently when asked to list some potential 2012 GOP contenders if McCain fall short of the presidency.

Any such list is divided into two groups: 2008 losers (Mitt Romney; Mike Huckabee; Rudy Giluliani; maybe Fred Thompson; maybe Ron Paul) and newcomers (Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana; Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; Charlie Crist of Florida; Mark Sanford and Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina; former Ohio Rep. Rob Portman and some folks nobody is thinking about right now)."

Also, according to this article Lindsay Graham and Rob Portman should be added as well.

Please re-add Giuliani to the article. Thanks.

Diamond Dave 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m ( talk • contribs)

Thank you for correcting :)

Diamond Dave 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m ( talk • contribs)

This is not vandalism, please do not label as such. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

All leader deposed by coups de etat are listed as no longer governing. And no of them has been legally removed from office... -- Againme ( talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manuel Zelaya. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mfield ( Oi!) 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}}) reply

Hello, Ratemonth. You have new messages at Netalarm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Netalarm 13:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

Myself and Timmeh have had a strong discussion about major change to this article. Before we did anything we wanted to get feedback regular editors of this page, William S. Saturn, Hysteria18, Jerzeykydd, Ratemonth, JayJasper, GoodDay, Qqqqqq, GageSkidmore, Reywas92, and FallenMorgan. Please send this to anyone else I may have left and please read the thread on Ruled Out and give us your feedback.

--Diamond Dave 16:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m ( talk • contribs)

Proposed solution to ruled out debate on [ [1]]. Please submit your feedback. Thanks. David1982m ( talk • —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC). reply

Please see WP:MOSFLAG. We don't use flags to decorate articles in this way. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

In the absence of any response from you, I have removed the flag again. -- John ( talk) 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh good. Someone was able to do some improvements on my initial attempts. Also good find on endorsements for Schaffer; I was hoping someone could add more info on the other candidates (I'm a Perry supporter so I tend to stick with working that side of the article). Maverick9711 ( talk) 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You wanted a source that proves the season 4 of The Venture Bros. starts on October 18, see the Adult Swim schedule for yourself : http://www.adultswim.com/schedule/onair.html -- Grapesoda22 ( talk) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Whooooooooooops. MartinSFSA ( talk) 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Why do you keep reverting the edits to that page? Several people have been trying to remove the unnecessary and unsubstantiated information about her religion. She recently went on the Dallas Morning News and said she is not a practicing Jew and does not associate with the religion. Please refrain from edit warring with the users who want to update the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.159.228 ( talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

If you or anyone else can provide a reputable source stating she doesn't consider herself a practicing Jew, please do. Until that is provided the information should remain. And regardless of her religion, the information about her parents is properly cited and there is no reason for it to be deleted. Ratemonth ( talk) 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the Sanford debate will never end, lol. I have 3 sources that are still discussing Mark Sanford in conjunction to 2012 that are less than 6 months old, but JerzeyKydd is still insisting that discussion for him has ceased for 6 months. The sources I added are less than 6 months. I agreed to take down Ensign because no one is talking him in conjunction 2012, but why are people still talking about Sanford in conjunction 2012? I was wondering if maybe you wanted to add your feedback to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Thanks. -- Diamond Dave ( talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

There seems to be yet another debate over Mark Sanford and now whether not Bobby Jindal should remain on this page. Since you are an editor on this page, I was hoping you would be interested in joining the discussion at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#This_article_is_not_about_who_will_be_running.3F

Please provide your feedback! Thanks so much!

-- Diamond Dave ( talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

As an occasional or frequent editor of the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 article, your participation in this discussion would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks.-- JayJasper ( talk) 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Edward130603 ( talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Where's your discussion on the talk page after this edit summary? Toddst1 ( talk) 19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I did not know El Paso's city council is officially non-partisan; chalk that up to my ignorance. But it stands to reason just because the body is non-partisan doesn't mean its members are, as witness the news Mr. O'Rourke would not run for Congress against the powerful Silvestre Reyes -- as a Democrat. (See the third paragraph.)

What bothers me is that a 2,000-word article on such a contentious political figure doesn't mention his party affiliation. This is as credible as a piece on George W. Bush without the word Republican, or one on Barack Obama without a Democrat. Time's recent quote of the guy got my suspicions up. That's why I attempted the revision -- and I do believe some form of it should stand. Edesan ( talk) 02:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop removing my "nonsense". News confirmed on Doctor Who Magazine - http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/

Stop editing for 2 reasons. 1) The grammer is the wrong tense, and you change it and insist that it's a spelling error your wrong, everyone else is correct. And about River implied she died is right as this is the exact words about the exploding TARDIS Amy: That's River, how can she be up there? Rory: Must be like a recording or something. Doctor: No it's not. It's the emergancy proticals of course the TARDIS sealed off the control room to save her, she is right at the heart of explosion.' Implying that she dies but the TARDIS captures a moment and saves it untill the Doctor completes the savour. Stop changing it. Thank you KnowIG ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Talk to me or don't bother your choice, ive explain now your terms to expalin KnowIG ( talk) 00:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply

=Thank you for listening, dialouge would be better though so I know what your thinking :) KnowIG ( talk) 00:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you read the book that says they are not characters from the book or that locations in the book are not there?

I have the book proof in front of me (supplier by the publishers) so I know what I am talking about. I can if required include this information in an official site and link to it. Would that satisfy you desire to remove things you know nothing about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonOookAnthony ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nakon 04:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop to substitute the through ". It is a formatting error to use ".." for episode titles in Wikipedia. It's hard to correct it, if u change it back. Thanks for understanding. I'm on airport so I only use IP. 213.235.237.194 ( talk) 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Texas gubernatorial election, 2010. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop undoing changes because you don't like them or you don't understand the editor's intent or explanation. Neither are valid grounds for reversion. Toddst1 ( talk) 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No polls were removed yet, if you want to help clean up the primary content which is old and out of place, go ahead. I just moved it down and the general election stuff up. It still needs cleanup or simplification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.137.174 ( talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply

How on earth can you assert that the next UK election will have 650 seats?
How can you be certain that the forthcoming referendum will not result in a change in system?
Are you willing to explain how a parliament that has not sat can be hung?
Why is it relevant to post details of party leaders who may not be in place in 4 1/2 years time?
How can you be certain that no candidate will die between nominations closing and the election date?
How can you assert that it is "usual" to do something in the absence of either a minority government nor a coalition being formed when a UK election is inconclusive, when the situation has never arisen?

Your reversion of my edits suggests that you can answer all of these questions. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

"It has been allowed in the past" means nothing: answer the questions I have put to you. Kevin McE ( talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The citation from magazine Monitor was removed by user NetLink2010 because the article cited from that magazine is not founded on facts, rather on uncertain implications and speculations. The accusation of money laundering can seriously harm Knežević's reputation on both domestic and international business scene. If not proved, checked, or valid, there is no need to be published on wikipedia, even if it is published in one (and just one) national magazine. This is explanation for the deletion made. Adriatic mne ( talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Please can you revert that article back to a more distant sane copy without all the crap, I don't know how to.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.231.154 ( talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Stop putting this back in, it's vandalism. The 60 years obviously refers to previous generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.206.33 ( talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Obviously they are not the same show, Torchwood is however a spin-off of Doctor Who... The time slot this show has been given (mid Doctor season) might suggest a crossover. Even if this should turn out not to be the case it might be of interest to Doctor Who fans that do not live in the UK and are dependent upon Wikipedia as one of their prime sources of information about new developments and air dates/-times! Satoriforsale 20:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoriforsale ( talk • contribs)

Hi, Doctor Who will return with the last episodes of season 6 in September not in August. "The series will run for seven initial episodes, then take a two-month hiatus after a massive cliffhanger and return to BBC One in September." -> http://primetime.unrealitytv.co.uk/doctor-who-to-air-in-us-and-uk-on-23rd-april-2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.82.107 ( talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi there. While this is a good edit, the edit summary incorrectly indicated that it was vandalism. I don't agree with the edit summary. Please be careful with the term. Thanks! -- John ( talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

On the El Paso page, I used temperatures that included earlier dates, they're from a Texas climatology site, but I'll re-add the numbers once I find that website address again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.223.223 ( talk) 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Congratulations Ratemonth, you have been invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections as a result of your outstanding contributions to U.S. presidential election articles. Please add your name to this list to join.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not call my articles rude because I find it very rude, I was just started the article so other people can finish it off.

Willrocks10 ( talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

For the article United States Senate elections, 2012 I've noticed that you remove candidates that don't have sources associated with them. I understand your reason that things need to be verifiable, but in most cases they really are candidates and someone just didn't post an article. This is just a suggestion, but it might be better to just look up an article quickly and add it instead of deleting a real candidate. A simple search usually gives a reliable source. Rxguy ( talk) 23:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm interested to see your opinion on this.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Leave to amend the text, the city is not called "Heroica Ciudad Juárez". His name is Ciudad Juárez, Heroica is just a slogan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.131.245.37 ( talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for catching my date error on Wisconsin Senate recall elections, 2011. Cheers. 208.127.239.5 ( talk) 03:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply

May I respectfully call your attention to the stated policy on vandalism? And I quote - "if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism". What I have added is relevant, appropriate to current events, and properly referenced AND is appropriate for summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjoneson ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I do appreciate the comment from you on my talk page. I respectfully disagree on the "pov", though I am happy to discuss possible alternate wordings on the talk page for the article. As for the redundancy - I feel that is incomplete to leave essentially no summary of the article above the contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjoneson ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Ratemonth. Thanks for your work reverting the unsourced entries by IP 75.224.90.15. We have had an ongoing problem with this sort of thing for some time now so I thought I would make you aware of this list User:Doc9871/Voice Cast Vandal that we have been keeping to track this pest(s). Thanks again for your vigilance and have a great 2012 on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

As the people you removed are actually on the ballot in New Hampshire, they qualify as candidates, as well as real people. The State of New Hampshire requires that candidates be genuine human beings. The Green Papers got these names from the NH government, and that should be good enough for anyone Ericl ( talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Enrique Peña Nieto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PRI ( 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) 11:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumi-Taskbot ( talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Why was my edit revised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.190.61 ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry bro my bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.190.61 ( talk) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Enrique Peña Nieto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PRI ( 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) 11:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for dealing with his/her gibberish. I have been trying to since November. Any help is appreciated. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 04:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you give proof that the next russian presidential election is in 2018? I gave proof for the 2016 election and you called me a vandal. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Nevermind. I found a news article that says the election is in 2018. I just don't think that calling someone a vandal when I had some evidence, even if it outdated is appropriate. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 20:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Please don't revert edits without looking into essense and into the article talk page. The article was stale for two years. Time for it to go. Once againn, "stateless communism" is a tautology, because by definition, communism is a stateless society. " communist states" did not have communism, although in loose and polemic parlance they theirs was called "communism" . Anyway, I requested third opinion. Anyway, communism is dead, and this bullshit may sit here for another two years, I dont care. It is just bad impression about wikipedia coming form this page that bothers me. Lovok Sovok ( talk) 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. For the page of Éponine, I noticed you reverted an edit of mine on March 10 2012. I reverted it back. The original intent of my edit was fixing a spelling correction, and was not meant as vandalism. Thank you. 205.189.94.13 ( talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I undid you edit on Gingrich homestate to keep the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 consistent with the infoboxtemplate that are used in the whole primary article serie. It is important for a high quality article serie to be internal consistent. I think the best place for you to start making comments and edits would be in the Template. The consensus reached on its talkpage will be followed throughout the primary article serie. There is a discussion on the subject at Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Gingrich homestate Jack Bornholm ( talk) 08:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You may want to learn what the definition of vandalism is before you remove the content from me and others from a page and then say it's vandalism just to remove it. Nice try, dude • GunMetal Angel 21:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, user. What pictures do you prefer?

Option C/E)

Option B)

Option D)

-- Belibaste ( talk) 22:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Please stop doing this.

The specified source says there's 26 episodes but episode "Boot It Up"' prod code is 227 so there's more episodes than 26. Bow-bb ( talk) 17:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shake_It_Up_episodes#ep45 227 that means there's 27 episodes but specified source says 26 eps, source is wrong. Please don't add again. I hope you understand. Bow-bb ( talk) 17:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ratemonth. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I didn't name you, but your opinion is valid. Tbhotch. ^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Don't you have any other business? 78.183.70.117 ( talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It's not vandalism, but rather you & other editors being pig-headed. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Why are you so determined to push PRESUMPTIVE nominees into those articles? WHY can't you wait until they're the nominees? GoodDay ( talk) 20:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You do realize you've breached 3RR (over 3 rvts within 24hrs). Now, you're just being spiteful. GoodDay ( talk) 20:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Please reverse your last rvt (whic happens to be your 4th within an hour) at 2012 Republican National Convention, or you'll force me to report you at WP:3RR. PS: Your refusal to respond to me 'here', only add to the appearance of you making this all personal. GoodDay ( talk) 21:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The non-UN member unrecognized state Pridnestrovie is named with politicians from Moldova and Romania disrespectfully with a Holocaust name as Transnistria (it is a contemptuously term ^[1], ^[2]).

November 29, 2000 in accordance with the recommendations of the UN by former President PMR - Smirnov issued a decree № 591 "On the transliteration and place names", according to which the name of the Transnistria in the Latin alphabet was established as Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (Pridnestrovie).

PRB, a financial representative of the TMR on the international scene has caused a stir. Its programmers have invented the three names of the republic: Trans-Dniester Moldavian Republic (TMR), Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublica (PMR), Moldova (Transdniestria). The coloring of the PRB and the Foreign Ministry website PMR added illiterate contraction of the words "street" and "city", ie «Ul» instead of «str», and «g» instead of «town».

06.04.2012 was repealed it Decree and in accordance with Art. 65 of the Constitution of Pridnestpovian Moldavian Republic new president Shevchuk signed a decree number 252, which recognized only the official name of the PMR in English - Pridnestpovian Moldavian Republic (Pridnestrovie) ^[3].

http://profvesti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/gerbi1-1024x407.jpg -- 217.19.208.101 ( talk) 22:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to all users mentioned below. You are all engaged in an edit war on the 2012 Republican National Convention article. I am giving you all your only and/or final warning to stop edit warring, or you may be blocked in accordance with policy. Relevant diffs:

• GoodDay removed at 16:55, 14 July 2012 UTC
• Ratemonth added
• Unfriend removed
• Ratemonth added
• GoodDay removed
• Ratemonth added
• GoodDay removed
• Ratemonth added
• GoodDay removed
• Ratemonth added at 20:57, 14 July 2012 UTC

All edits were within a 24 hour period. Whether or not you break the "3 revert rule", blocks are still acceptable if a user continues to edit war despite warnings. I invite you all to take part in the discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus on these matters. I also see something similar going on at 2012 Democratic National Convention. Lets do the same there, please. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC) reply

As a frequent or occasional editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.-- JayJasper ( talk) 05:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I know. I was say "Showfax.com is not a reliable source information may wrong.." I wasn't add it. MichelleTheola ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Why did you undo my edit on the Rory Williams -page? The Let's Kill Hitler page says the year is 1938 as does this page. 101090ABC ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry for using the exclamation point; I wasn't shouting. The information that you provided isn't actual fact, but your own personal view. Throughout the episode "Burning low", Flame Princess, herself, never have emotionally, physically, or verbally stated that she is in love with Finn or see him as a Boyfriend; maybe in future episode, but not as of now. We can hope and see.

207.237.167.6 ( talk) 19:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I just revised back to the last compromised that we both agree on a month ago. Also, there need to be a history that leads to there or people will keep changing it; like Finn's age for example. People change it because there's no connecting history that lead up to the provided information. Even if there's a reference, there will be re-runs that will depicted Finn as 12 years old and maybe they'll show an episode as him being 14 after; there's must be an explanation explaining the beginning to the end. What I'm trying to say is, you can't have a relationship (Girlfriend/Boyfriend) if they weren't friends to begin with. If there's any further question or misunderstanding, please, see the article talk page; I'll be there and we can talk about it more. I have never disagree with you at any point, I just want to make things less confusing for other readers. 207.237.167.6 ( talk) 02:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notice and I just corrected the error; it shouldn't be contradicting right now. If there's any further errors, questions, or misunderstandings; please, let me know at the talk page. 207.237.167.6 ( talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello R. I didn't get to leave an edit summary but as another editor beat me to the page but there is a source for the September date. It is attached to the date mentioned for Asylum for the Daleks in the 7th season table. IMO it doesn't need to be in two different places but if you want to attach it to the other spot please feel free to do so. If you don't like the source you might mention it on the talk page. I am just trying to avoid any edit warring so please forgive me if this post causes any offense. MarnetteD | Talk 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you've edited Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States in the past. I was wondering if you could give your views regarding this talk page discussion about the heights of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Thanks! -- 76.189.110.167 ( talk) 17:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, it seems you had a couple questions for me regarding my changes to the us presidential election, 2012 article.

why is there no sense in having 3 rows?

Well, have you seen an election page with 5/6 candidates and 3 different rows? I sure haven't. Normally election pages with 5/6 candidates have only 2 rows for the candidates. If you can show me an election page on wiki that has 3 rows AND less than 7 different candidates on display, I would love to see it so that I can learn more about them.

who cares why johnson isn't on 50 ballots? he isn't.

I don't care that much to be honest, but the last editor, User: Jack Bornholm disagreed and felt that top row candidates needed to have full ballot access to be on the top row so I had to explain my editing decision. It sounds like we may agree on this part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deturtlemon1 ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I went online to see what the summary of the episode was about. When I saw the description, I used some of the dialogue, but put most of it into my own work! I don't see why you keep accusing me of plagiarism because I didn't just DIRECTLY copy the work onto Wikipedia when I know that that is the wrong thing to do! I always check the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and I don't always do the wrong thing! An administrator has told me that if I was going to use information on a page, then I have to put it into my own words to prevent plagiarism! Can you please tell me how I am plagiarizing that page! The Smell of Magic 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Oops, didn't catch that it was a quote, sorry about that, and thanks for catching it. Grollτech ( talk) 02:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Paso, Texas mayoral election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cook ( 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) 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Explain how i'm "adding unsourced information" please. This message was posted to you by BLING8293 ( GET OFF THE F**KING SOFA!) 03:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

God how do you even come up with such terrible excuses? The fact about the two shorts were true on the Regular Show page and same with the air date for the Adventure Time pilot. You've probably never even watched Regular Show and Adventure Time before. This message was posted to you by BLING8293 ( GET OFF THE F**KING SOFA!) 16:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As a significant contributor to article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be appreciated and helpful.-- JayJasper ( talk) 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I was extremely bemused to see you remove the surplus vote section. It already has three references - 2 from Ha'aretz and one from the Jerusalem Post. By all means remove the unreferenced stuff, but don't remove stuff that has citations. Thanks, Number 5 7 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solicitor General ( 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) 11:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adventure Time (season 5), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David O'Reilly ( 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) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Please don't delete anyone's comments but your own, and even then only if no one has responded to your comment. Insomesia ( talk) 09:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Why oh why would you do a cut and paste move? -- KTC ( talk) 22:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I do not think that calling individuals "liars" is an effective way to participate in edit dialogue. Additionally I found that repeatedly you do not cite any summaries for your rapid fire edits. Perhaps you should address these to be a more positive contributor to sources, as it stands I found it quite difficult to follow your edits, though I did agree with the formatting on several of them. The goal is to get a consensus and team work, and a quality, truthful, and unbiased article. Both of the above mentioned practices hinder that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Referring to my request for improvement as 'stupid' is simply another notion that perhaps you need to call it a day, as you are putting your editorial history on the line currently. To answer your aggressive commentary on my page, I included two links, not one, one of which was a direct link to the articles of the Venezuelan government. I understand your confusion, but I would hope that you tone down your aggressive writing style as it is not conducive to team work or article creation. If you would care to view and translate (as I have) the articles to English, you will find that it is in fact without question that the articles of the constitution were not adhered to (if that is the euphemism you want for 'violated').

--
98.252.50.93 (
talk) 03:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
reply

Hey Ratemonth; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

There's your damn source. Stop being so freaking rude. User talk:ThatTVDude

At least this edit explained where the dubious info is coming from. I find it frustrating when people keep trying to import info from Wikia thinking it is a usable source. I do think that edit was good faith albeit misguided and probably should not have been tagged as vandalism when reverted. I dropped the editor a note on his talk page to explain more to him. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 04:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi - No comment on the specific debate, but I just wanted to let you know that biased sources are not prohibited in WP:IRS. WP:NPOV does not require that our sources are neutral, only that the articles we write with those sources are neutral. However, there were more things wrong with that source than being biased. I would've cited "self-published" as a reason not to use that source or "not supported by a reputable source."--v/r - T P 13:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate election in Texas, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill White ( 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) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Please be consistent and remove the codes from Doctor Who (series 7) and List of Doctor Who serials as well. — Edokter ( talk) — 20:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello! I noticed this edit in which you say you're removing vandalism. While I agree that this should've been removed, it is not vandalism. Rose, Martha, and Donna were in the episode, just not in the conventional way: They were seen as images produced by the TARDIS for it's visual interface. Just thought you ought to know. –– Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 02:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Brian Sandoval shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

The above warning, although pertinent, was procedural. I couldn't warn or block one without warning the other. Now that you have read it you may remove the warning yourself (the IP has since been blocked for disruption in other areas), but please don't let yourself be goaded into such a situation again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Texas gubernatorial election, 2014 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.

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The definition of vandalism is very specific, and your edits at Texas gubernatorial election, 2014 may not meet the WP:3RR exemption for reverting vandalism. I have warned Texasgov14 ( talk · contribs) for edit warring; I'm not going to give you a templated message, but I wanted to make sure I left some notice here to go with the 3RR warning I gave there. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Also threatening to edit war with someone "till one of us falls asleep" suggests a battleground approach to editing and you were lucky you didn't find yourself blocked just for that. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I've started a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. I think the onus is on the unregistered editor (who made the first edit) to explain, but I feel I should let you know as well, especially as you have already made three reversions. The other editor has already made four reversions; if that editor reverts it again, I will make a report at the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring (and perhaps reinstate the information [though it may not be reliably sourced]). Anon126 ( talk - contribs) 04:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2014 Crimean crisis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Ratemonth! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, — DerHexer  (Talk) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

As an frequent contributor to the the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks.-- JayJasper ( talk) 05:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Enhanced interrogation techniques. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Please also review WP:VANDNOT and stop the spurious accusations of vandalism. VQuakr ( talk) 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You reverted to the "last good version". Please tell me what was bad about the other so I could fix it. Jimp 20:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC) ... I think I know what went wrong. Please check whether this version works. Jimp 20:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Now it's a good version. Actually, the version with {{age in days nts}} wasn't good either: the sorting was messed up for the days column; Grover Cleveland and Lyndon B. Johnson were out of order. Jimp 20:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 21st century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000s. 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) 12:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing— 1864 Republican National Convention —has been proposed for merging with 1864 National Union National Convention. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Please edit the white pride page. The pride pages for all other races and minorities have positive remarks,but the White Pride page is filled with racial hatred against white people. For example: White pride is a slogan primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations to signal their racist viewpoints whereas Black pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being black.

Why can't the white pride page be changed? Are you implying that all proud white people are racist neonazis? Well,making stereotypes over a race is racist,isn't it? I hereby ask that you change the text of the page into one that does not portray the white people as being racist. Why can't you add this? "White pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being white." Or are you saying it's racist and neonazi to be proud to be white? 2A02:2F0A:C089:7C00:6891:5F6B:8505:BA57 ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You asked for a couple of days see if anyone objected to putting back the non-notable candidates on more than two ballots. Not a single person has registered a single one. I presume that this is a consensus. Have a Merry Christmas...T-Minus fifty days and counting. 70.107.133.97 ( talk) 22:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure, but the consensus on the Democratic primary articles count for the Republicans too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.133.97 ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Donald Jeffrey Large page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

You have made 3 or more reverts in the past 24 hours on Black pride. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ratemonth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply