|
HiWP Ludicer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC) |
There is no documentary evidence supporting the assertion that the SCCA was once the prewar ARCA. The true origins of the SCCA are clearly discussed in Pete Hylton's book The Gentleman's Club. I suggest, in true wikipedia style, that you find an actual citation if you want to assert this claim. Note that I requested such a citation more than 10 years ago on the talk page, and got no response. I'm not real impressed right now. Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edittoRichard Green (referee)— 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 Help Desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Widjididji. Recently you deleted an external link that I had added to Ingvar Kamprad's page, where I linked to an MSN article titled Ikea's enigmatic founder's amazing and controversial life. You didn't give any reason for this deletion, and I'm wondering why you didn't think it belonged there. Do you not consider MSN an appropriate source? I thought it was an interesting article that other people might like to read. Please advise. Widjididji (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm RoseGold1250. I noticed that you recently removed content from It's Not Unusual without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. It's rose gold! (T?) 14:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you Ludicer often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
Rose of Solidarity |
| This was the picture of the day consiquently Contrariagirl (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] |
