User talk:Teamantime

Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source
Better editing today but I must point out that Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. Check it out. --Simon D M (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Sahaja Yoga
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Teamantime! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bvids\.myspace\.com\b, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Sahaja Yoga. In the future, when in content disputes, please discuss your edits on the talk page and seek consensus. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Should you wish to contest your block, you may add to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Language
Hello, Teamantime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Plaese stop removing sourced, neutral information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. --Simon D M (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not replace neutral wording with POV wording in Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Simon D M (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by replacing neutral wording with POV wording in articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Simon D M 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning for Inappropriate Use of Minor Edit Box
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' --Simon D M (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are still misusing the minor edit box. --Simon D M (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning template abuse by Simon D M
It is pretty obvious that the above templates are solely intended to harass this new editor. Simon D M did the same thing to my talk page - pathetic behaviour. S facets 11:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Simon D M (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. --Simon D M (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.  Alex ' fusco ' 5  02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)