Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 17)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply


 
Hello! Rocko Gangsta, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rottweiler, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Rottweiler. --Mr Fink (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

November 2016

edit

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Block evasion. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unsourced genres

edit

Hi there, re: this edit at Sage the Gemini, genres are subjective, and as such, are contentious. Please be sure to add a reliable source when adding or changing genres, since I'm sure you can imagine the problems created when two editors disagree about interpretive content. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

November 2016

edit
 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lil Wayne. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

MfD nomination of User:Rocko Gangsta/sandbox

edit

  User:Rocko Gangsta/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rocko Gangsta/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rocko Gangsta/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply