User talk:96.241.115.37

September 2016
Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Willian (footballer)— because it did not appear constructive. 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  00:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Willian (footballer). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

May 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liz Cheney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What is unconstructive about telling the world that a New York Times reporter arbitrarily labeled someone as "far-right"?? I know liberals on Wikipedia really really really really really want to control the narrative and put labels on "bad" Republicans, but one reporter's description of a congressman is not encyclopedic. Subjective assessments of Jim Jordan are not good. Jim Jordan is a conservative Republican...simple as that. Calling him "far-right" is a pejorative.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Liz Cheney. ''Please avoid personal attacks against editors and be sure to follow WP:AGF. The New York Times is an WP:RS. Please open a discussion on the relevant talk page to deal with this issue instead of reverting and name calling.'' Plandu (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Liz Cheney. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2021 (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.