KiloByte1337
June 2017 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Muffler has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Muffler was changed by KiloByte1337 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.960352 on 2017-06-14T09:45:41+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
July 2017 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I have removed your edit to Lisa Murkowski's biography because Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia; it does not have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and editorial controls such that its material can be trusted for inclusion. I have included Murkowski's explanation of her vote and positive and negative reactions to the vote, sourced to the Alaska Dispatch News, a reliable source. In the future, please see WP:RS and WP:RSN for help understanding what we consider reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions authorized for American politics and biography articles edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC). Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC).October 2017 edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
November 2017 edit
Hello, I'm Home Lander. I noticed that in this edit to Right to keep and bear arms, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
December 2017 edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Please stop making minor changes in wording, thereby changing the meanings considerably, without adequate reasons as evidenced by using a valid Edit summary and without proper WP: Sources. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
January 2018 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Independence Day (1996 film), you may be blocked from editing. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
NATO spending targets edit
Regarding your edit on Bundeswehr, this is the relevant document from the 2014 Wales Summit: https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm. Please see this part of paragraph 14:
Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so. Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will halt any decline in defence expenditure; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
Unless there's a superseding declaration I've missed, which there very well could be . . . ? Thank you, PhainetaiMoi (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Copy-and-paste violation edit
I reverted your edits to Elizabeth Holmes. You were correct to include information, but incorrect in that you have copied & pasted from the source. This is a copyright violation. Please paraphrase & repost. Also, I suggest you use a citation template if you are editing the Wikitext or use the VisualEditor citation function. Peaceray (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)