User talk:Alexg27

Alexg27 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)i can only talk to myself[reply]

Re:

Sure. I'll keep the article under my watchlist. For now I think you need to include more inline citations. If you have any more specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me or the other online ambassadors. Also, the WP Online Ambassadors for your class are Ed and Cindamuse. I think they are better-equipped to answer any questions relating to course requirements. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Alexg27, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Alexg27.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lia Thomas. 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. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lia Thomas, you may be blocked from editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see WP:DEADNAME and MOS:GIDINFO. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 11:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Film. 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. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a political persecution and possible slander. If a case were to be brought against Wikipedia this could be an example of that. It's a subjective opinion that he's an American conspiracy theorist and/or American hero. Alexg27 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political persecution? Pull the other leg. And what could be slander? I see nothing. For some reason you added to the definition of Film the word American, despite the fact that it's not exclusively American. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 21:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 14:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as those you made to Mike Lindell will probably result in a topic ban

Not just unsourced, which is bad enough but there are no reliably published sources backing those edits. This is a mainstream encylopedia, maybe you should got to Conservapedia. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]