Is there a reason why you can't discuss your additions on the talk page? It might stop other editors from reverting them if you justified them. Verbal chat 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Aoso0ck. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aoso0ck editing restriction. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for using an edit summary to explain why you wish to delete content in
Licensure. However, another editor did not see your content removal as constructive, and it has been
reverted. If you disagree with the interpretation of sources, please discuss why you think the text is inaccurate on the article talkpage and provide sources of your own, rather than just deleting the text. Thank you.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Licensure, you will be
blocked from editing. You need to justify removing large sections of text like this with a more informative discussion on the talk page.
Verbal
chat
17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to
Parabolic antenna, you will be
blocked from editing. --
Gerry Ashton (
talk)
17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Licensure is permission or legal authority unexclusive to organisational membership. Federal and/or local jurisdiction never regulate the membership aspect of professional licensure. Aoso0ck ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Licensure or legal authority to carry on a business or learned trade, additional ("Other uses of licensure", the qualification of the term not limited exclusively to the few, highly salaried professionals). Unnecessary, prevelent prejudise among licensed highly salaried vs typical commoners seems unapplicable towards usual licensure. pervasion of medical exclusivity pervading licensure unnessary to a common licensee. Aoso0ck ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to
Electronic signature. 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.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing. You have been told before that reverting to your version with no discussion is not acceptable. This is your only warning that this is still the case.
NJGW (
talk)
05:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Specialty (medicine) has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Shell
babelfish
06:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The
recent edit you made to
Family medicine constitutes
vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you.
Shell
babelfish
06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)