User talk:Meowcatzmeow

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Meowcatzmeow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to George W. Bush has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: George W. Bush was changed by Meowcatzmeow (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.947985 on 2013-11-08T01:17:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at George W. Bush. 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 makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: George W. Bush was changed by Meowcatzmeow (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.870435 on 2013-11-08T01:25:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Please note that it is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy to insert unattributed editorialising opinion into articles - if you persist in doing this you risk being blocked from editing. I suggest that you also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on edit-warring - particularly WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Meowcatzmeow. You have new messages at Talk:Susan Lindauer.
Message added 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones (radio host) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Kent Hovind 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Ted Cruz. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 21:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Ted Cruz. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ted Cruz 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 article's 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoengineering. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guilelessness

Hi Meowcatzmeow. You are right about 'guilelessness' being a part of Myshkin's personality and its effect on others. I feel, though, that it is sort of already implied in "goodness and open-hearted simplicity". It is better, for the sake of succinctness and fluidity in the prose, to avoid too many nouns or adjectives that point to the same thing. There's nothing wrong with it though and it might be an important nuance, so I'll leave it up to you. Thanks for taking my reversions of your other edits in the right spirit. Stay well Meowcatzmeow. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting reliable sources

I had to revert your recent edits at both Inferiority complex and false flag because they did not reflect the sources. It is important that Wikipedia articles summarize reliable sources WP:RS. We cannot express our own opinions in articles. Thank you, —Paleo Neonate – 11:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please also see WP:MINOR: various edits you flagged as minor could not be considered minor according to policy. Thanks again, —Paleo Neonate – 11:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]