User talk:Alfacosmo

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Occupy Melbourne, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. 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: Occupy Melbourne was changed by Alfacosmo (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.862874 on 2011-10-26T01:35:25+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Occupy Melbourne with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Critical Mass appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Critical Mass. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]