User talk:Steve901

April 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. An edit that you recently made to Fiji seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of cities in Saskatchewan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, did you read my edit summary? You have applied the incorporation dates for the Manitoba portion of the City of Flin Flon to the Saskatchewan portion. We can't assume the Saskatchewan portion was incorporated on the same dates as the Manitoba portion. They could be entirely different dates, just like in the case of the Alberta and Saskatchewan portions of Lloydminster (see its infobox). Hopefully this helps you understand. I will revert your edits a second time. If you can find an elusive source that explicitly confirms the dates when the Saskatchewan portion of Flin Flon were incorporated, add those instead. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to That's Lobstertainment! have been removed because you cited the information you added to another Wikipedia article or an external wiki. As discussed at WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS respectively, Wikipedia and other wikis should not be used in citations because they are not considered reliable sources. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reference, perhaps from the article you originally linked to. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm OxonAlex. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Meneuz-Moskva have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sugar Loaf Lakes have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emily Deschanel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Bay, Wisconsin. 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. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Corman shepherd[edit]

The article Corman shepherd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. None of the cited sources are anywhere near being WP:RS. An extensive search for sources revealed nothing attributable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cavalryman (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buffy Summers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graduate. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Rodney King, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. — Chevvin 03:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinkage[edit]

Please read Wikipedia's policies on linking articles. Just because there is an article on a word doesn't mean that that word needs to be linked to that article, unless necessary. — Chevvin 22:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tiger Woods. 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. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Spencer^T•C 17:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruption, refusal to discuss.

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 ~~~~}}.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Steve901 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't get why I'm blocked. I thought the 24 hour block for my edit on Tiger Wood's page was my punishment for vandalism. I haven't done anything wrong since, as far as I know.

Decline reason:

This was vandalism since your 24 hour block. PhilKnight (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I forgot about that. I'm sorry. I won't do tgat again.

See User talk:Britney901. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]