User talk:Alexthill73

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Far-left politics, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Far-left politics. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chad, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Chad was changed by Alexthill73 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.980087 on 2017-10-29T06:42:17+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Far-left politics. Jim1138 (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart.com is not a wp:reliable source search on RSN Jim1138 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Far-left politics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Blackguard 07:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit on Chad

Because they're black people, so they like KFC, right? That's hilarious. Comedy gold right there. No idea why nobody's thought of that one before. AndreyKva (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Turkey. 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. This was not a test edit, you used curse words Work permit (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Democratic Republic of the Congo, you may be blocked from editing. You vandalized the article Turkey as well. Please stop Work permit (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]