Hello, FenderstratGatorlord, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Fender Stratocaster did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. - FlightTime ( open channel) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Intelligent design without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
DVdm (
talk)
16:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Intelligent design shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi FenderstratGatorlord! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
E. W. Jackson that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk)
18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
E. W. Jackson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your
sandbox for that. Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk)
19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I removed the pseudoscientific in the front and moved to "critics of Intelligent design" to make it more unbiased. I added the criticisms from the young earth creationist community because there are many YEC critics of the ID movement.
Also "pseudoscientific argument" does not sound very right as only theories can be pseudoscientific.
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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Doug Weller talk 19:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Doug Weller talk 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Am I allowed to make Joke pages or Joke edits so that they can be deleted/reverted later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenderstratGatorlord ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Ideological bias on Wikipedia— fox news is not a reliable source on politics, and it was a badly written WP:BLP violation against your fellow Wikipedians. Do not do that again. Dronebogus ( talk) 02:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I am now a Editor in the Spanish wikipedia
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Emu War. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Nick-D (
talk)
09:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Papyrus 75.
Doug Weller
talk
12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)