This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at You Should Have Left, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further vandalism, as done at You Should Have Left.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   KTC ( talk) 17:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Princess Marie of Romania has been reverted.
Your edit here to Princess Marie of Romania was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed ( http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/bucharest-october-2011-hrh-princess.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! -- XLinkBot ( talk) 12:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

This RS discussion is relevant to your recent edits.

Your reverts re-adding citations here and here, as well as your earlier ones, contravene WP requirements for RS, especially for BLPs:

• Where in this image or this image is it explicitly stated Princess Maria received the Knight of the Royal Decoration of the Custodian of the Romanian Crown, 1st Class?
• Please explain to me how

  The wedding celebration was held at the Greek Orthodox Holy Trinity Cathedral in New York, and was attended by the Romanian royal family, the parents of Kazimierz, the newly married Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Greece.

  can be verified by this picture or this picture, or by the content in this link to a blog? Even if the last ref did include information supporting the wedding quote, how does NoblesseetRoyautes.com satisfy this WP:BLPSPS policy:

  Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person

  or this WP:RSSELF policy:

  Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

  Furthermore, why do you believe theroyalforums.com is acceptable to use given the policy on user-generated content?

If you continue adding these types of references I will escalate this to administers. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning 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 at Princess Marie of Romania. —  Newslinger  talk 07:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Princess Marie of Romania. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—  Newslinger  talk 07:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply