RanEagle

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Buffalo County, South Dakota, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Spiesr (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Storm surge

I've added the Bay of Bengal in one section that appeared US centric. If this addresses your tagging, you can remove it. Otherwise, respond on the talk page within the next week, or I'll remove it. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dictatorship, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TN‑X-Man 00:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Conversion therapy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. EqualRights (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia

I am reverting your edits to United States Postal Service. If you actually bothered to read the article, you would realize your edit is just plain wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that the USPS is NOT a government-owned corporation and a GOC is another name for a state-owned enterprise. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be permanently blocked.--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Nancy Pelosi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Loonymonkey (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

need more exact citation

About this source, can you cite the exact page or pages where the claim is made or explained? You see, it's 946 pages long document, so if you could point out the exact place.... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd additions

Hoedy - please be sure to add citations along with the material you've been adding to various articles. I'm afraid that many of your additions are a little bizarre (75% of Texas is evangelical protestant?) Your observations must be verifiable before they can be added. Since this seems to be an ongoing issue with your additions, please be sure not to let this happen again. Kuru ^talk 03:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Giver

Hi. I have reverted your edits. Your additions were unsourced, and it was not mentioned in the book. If you have a reliable source to back up the information, then feel free to re-add it while citing the source, but if the information is not mentioned in any published sources, then do not re-add it. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Taylor Swift. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information. Please check what you've added before adding it. You've had plenty of warnings. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Septic tank, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For adding dubious and uncited claims to articles (such as [1] and [2]) despite being repeatedly warned against disruptive editing.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add hoax material to articles such as [3],. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to American Airlines, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Spikydan1 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Miley Cyrus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Spikydan1 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to KBXX. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Error -128 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Kijong-dong. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Error -128 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Louisiana. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Boracay Bill (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to American Airlines. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. HkCaGu (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, one way or another this can't go on, RanEagle. The following selection of recent examples is by no means comprehensive:

• These edits to American International Group were considered inappropriate and removed here.
• This edit, again to American International Group, was corrected here. Your revision suggested that the company left China "right after" the Chinese Civil War, even though the departure occurred significantly earlier than May 1950 (when war hostilities ceased), and several months before October 1949 (when the PRC was officially established). The references at Cornelius Vander Starr give more details.
• This edit to Rebirth (Lil Wayne album) was felt to be questionable and removed here.
• Your reversion of the above was also undone here, since you offered no verification or explanation for the actions.
• This edit to Natasha Richardson was reverted here, because your reference did not not provide a reliable source.

It's really not a good idea to rely on gossip weblogs like PerezHilton.com, especially in circumstances like this. The article has since been updated in a more measured way, citing carefully selected news reports from reliable sources such as The Irish Times⁽¹⁾ and BBC News.⁽²⁾⁽³⁾ —Further explanation/update added 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

• This edit to Shop Boyz was reverted here, since no verification was supplied.
• This edit to Consulate-General of the Philippines in Houston was reverted here, because the claim was clearly factually inaccurate. Did you not think the assertion that "Houston had around 60,000" Filipino Americans a little strange—when it directly contradicted the sentence immediately preceding it (stating that the entire Filipino population for Texas in 1986 was 50,000)?
• This edit to List of U.S. cities with large Filipino American populations was also reverted here, for similar reasons. The source you used would not normally be considered suitable for general population statistics—especially since there's already an entry in the article's References section that links to the United States Census Bureau's website.

In spite of the concerns about your editing that have been expressed by various members of the community, you seem unwilling or unable to modify your behaviour—or even to engage in any discussion. This is really unhelpful, since it only creates additional work for other editors, and makes it very hard for them to assume good faith.

I'm sure most of the good folks here would prefer to see your editing and reputation improve, rather than to watch you incur a further block for yourself. But that's really up to you. Before you embark on yet another round of edits, please stop to consider what we're saying. —Error -128 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued vandalism despite previous blocks and warnings. The next block will be indefinite.. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)