User talk:Alphonso125

January 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sister Souljah moment, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- --Darkwind (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --Darkwind (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sister Souljah moment. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sister Souljah moment was changed by Alphonso125 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.9109 on 2011-01-17T04:42:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sister Souljah moment, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you! -- --Darkwind (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Alphonso125. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Woodrow Wilson[edit]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Woodrow Wilson, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Woodrow Wilson was changed by Alphonso125 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.94562 on 2011-01-19T01:00:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning removed per discussion at http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/?page=View&id=202718 Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the above warning to the bot as a "false positive", since it does not appear to constitute vandalism. However, the edit is still inappropriate; a single blog entry by an author of no demonstrated notability or expertise does not constitute a reliable source to contradict the consensus of historians. The addition of the material to the lead is especially unjustified. There may well be noteworthy arguments against Wilson's beatification, and if these have been covered in reliable sources, they could properly be summarized in the article's main text. If sufficient evidence shows there is a real dispute on the issue, a mention of the contrary view may even belong in the lead. But it needs more backup than your edits have yet provided. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]