User talk:24.236.92.215

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Button, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. 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 produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Button was changed by 24.236.92.215 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899465 on 2011-09-06T22:53:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

March 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pope Julius II, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Joja lozzo  23:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Bucks of America, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rhinocesus (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gregg Phillips. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not adding personal analysis, I am removing language that does just that. The language I removed makes the article more neutral in tone, and therefore more in line with the neutrality policy such that it does not convey an opinion on the matter, only the facts. 24.236.92.215 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Disagree about your edits being "neutral in tone". Please discuss on the talk pages per wp:BRD Adakiko (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sjö (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, nor PolitiFact are "tabloid references". See also RS/P Washington Post RS/P The Daily Beast RSP PolitiFact Adakiko (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism. 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:. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 10:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.