64.183.42.25

February 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Xerostomia worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. JForget 21:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The recent edit you made to Xerostomia constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

November 2011

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Tavis Smiley, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SummerPhD (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Nostradamus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. In this diff, you directly attack another editor, make false claims, and are generally insulting. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The info you are now removing isn't in any way a personal attack. Stop being disruptive or you will be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Nostradamus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Nostradamus. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baseball's Last Hero: The Roberto Clemente Story.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baseball's Last Hero: The Roberto Clemente Story concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baseball's Last Hero: The Roberto Clemente Story, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

June 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nostradamus. 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. TF92 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

September 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Janis Joplin.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You erased my words from this very page. It is my "User talk" page. I clicked "submit" so I could defend myself. The submission did not go through because you blocked it. That means you are violating a Wikipedia rule. You are not allowed to mess with someone's "User talk" page. Please stop.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:64.183.42.25 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You erased my words from this very page. It is my "User talk" page. I clicked "submit" so I could defend myself. I tried to direct your attention to errors in Janis Joplin's "Sexuality and relationships" section. Your actions are condoning those errors. My submission here did not go through because you blocked it. That means you are violating a Wikipedia rule. You are not allowed to mess with someone's "User talk" page.

You need to seek consensus for the information you're adding to the article, And STOP edit warring - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have not removed anything from your page Please be careful when making such claims. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Then why did my attempt to defend myself not get processed after I clicked "submit"? I was trying to tell you to go to the bottom of the Talk page of Janis Joplin's article. Even if you did not mess with my page, please go to that Talk page. There I have explained that all previous edits of Janis' "Sexuality and relationships" section had a few minor errors. I have a book next to my computer, and it is one of the major sources for her entire article. Title is Going Down With Janis. Do you have a copy?

It's called an Edit conflict - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I've read your post at the bottom of the talk page, but that changes nothing. Your changes need to be discussed on the talk page, to seek consensus - FlightTime (open channel) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again. I clicked "submit" for my comment here, and it disappeared. I tried to retrieve it with the "back button" on my web browser, to no avail. My attempt to defend myself has been permanently destroyed.

If you're having trouble just trying to post on you own talk page, maybe you should find something else than Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe Wikipedia should allow someone who has a book next to his or her computer to cite a passage from that book, especially if a particular article cites the book as a source many times, and dozens of other Wikipedia editors have added the citations. Unlike blogs, Wikipedia is all about its sources. Do you have any of the sources for Janis' article near your computer? I have conceded that none of the sources listed in the article (so far) mentions Carl Bernstein, and you are right about his 1969 newspaper review being "not notable."

I've given FlightTime a bollocking for harrassing you and others, that should suffice. Regarding this revert, removing a citation to the Washington Post and Times Herald written by Carl Bernstein praising the post-Big Brother group under the grounds of "not notable" shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of what writing an encyclopedia is. Notability is about the suitability for a standalone article; the correct policy here is verifiability (can you back the quote up to show it's true?) and due weight (is it of sufficient importance in the article overall to mention). Anyway, I've put the quotation back, but trimmed a bit. This online Washington Post source cross references the Bernstein piece, with the summary "Simply, an evening with Janis Joplin is a party and a romp". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---