User talk:ElMachoBisonte

Hello, I'm JalenBarks. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Javon Kinlaw—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm Myrealnamm. I noticed that you added content to an article but didn't provide a reliable source. You should cite a reliable source for all of your edits so that they can be verified. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Adding unsourced content contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, which refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. Articles should be based on reliable and published sources (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely removed; this nonsense about 'haunted sign-offs' is constant and is part of a note in an article not to add it at all. Don't add it again. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Udoka Godwin-Malife article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to East Cobb, Georgia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Greensburg, Kansas. 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.

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 09:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Horus, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]