User talk:174.61.23.25

December 2018
Hello, I'm Girth Summit. I noticed that you recently removed content from Schenck v. United States 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. Girth Summit  (blether) 16:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2019
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Apate— because it 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. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to First Punic War— because it 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.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at First Punic War. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: First Punic War was changed by 174.61.23.25 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.930545 on 2019-03-12T19:37:30+00:00

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to First Punic War, you may be blocked from editing.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Log.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Widr (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Padre Pio— because it 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. Serols (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Padre Pio, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)