User talk:101.187.15.194

December 2014
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Melbourne Airport, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Your edit here to Melbourne Airport was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.ausbt.com.au/scoot-to-launch-melbourne-singapore-boeing-787-flights) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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) 01:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed content from Melbourne Airport without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. 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. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 07:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Melbourne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. ''Your reasons for removing sourced content are not adequate. They rely on original research. Discuss on talk if you disagree.'' —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 11:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)