User talk:75.150.245.61

September 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. &mdash;Kww(talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. &mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Menti  fisto  14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Desperado
Are you planning on improving the article, or re-adding a useless list that will be eliminated soon? Go to the article's talk page if you want this to stay. This list is not fit for the article, and you are not attempting to discuss, simply revert. I'll give you some time, but you do need to start discussing this soon... Doc9871 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

February 2011
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 Wheaton North High School, 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. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Kwiki (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

November 2013
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:2013 AFC West standings with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

August 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wedding ring. Tubby23  talk  00:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges, as done at Wedding ring. 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:. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2019 (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.

How to improve Saint Cecilia
Seems you want to improve the Saint Cecilia article with this edit here, and the edit summary "it says she died during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but it was actually Alexander Severus". I see under a different IP, another attempt has been made, saying "the article said Marcus Aurelius was the emperor, but it was actually Alexander Severus, who has the same first name, but they’re very different peopet".

To improve the article, you need to do some leg work. Your edits have been quickly reverted by other editors like me, who see that they weren't done so that one could easily see the value of the change. So: Any repeats of that change aren't going to stick, and are just going to waste time. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Marcus Aurelius, but Alexander Severus; you need to point to a source that says that
 * They have the same name? Not to the onlooker. You'll need a good edit summary to explain why this is a mistake, and why you propose a correction.