User talk:Raptornet

"ENGLAND" ADDED TO LONDON AGAIN, 24 March

Once again, you seem to feel the need to add the country to an article, in this case Covent Garden.

You have been admonished for this before (see below), and I support the wiki-London group's request that this not be included. Viva-Verdi 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your response that not everyone knows there London is, a click on the link to London and you'll see that it comes up as London and immediately describes as the capital of England. Besides, look at the other objections to your actions beyond mine. I am not alone Viva-Verdi 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during December 21 2006 (UTC) to United Kingdom

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London

I notice you are adding "London, England" to numerous articles connected with the British Museum. Please note that this is unnecessary - "London, England" redirects to "London", which is the primary means of identifying the city, it being so much larger than anywhere else of the same name. -- Arwel (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Your London Stone change was particularly pointless, as the link pointed exactly to the City of London. In general, the 'England' is just not needed. Tarquin Binary 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raptornet, you have also been deleting copy and pictures for no reason and correcting UK spelling to US ('center'). Please desist both from this and the link changes mentioned above, this conduct could easily be mistaken for vandalism. Tarquin Binary 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. Kbthompson 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional disruptive editing regarding the City of London

You seem to have problems understanding the difference between the City of London, England and London, England. This misunderstanding is causing a significant degree of distress at Wikipedia:WikiProject London.

London itself is an approximate 1600 square kilometer region with a population of 7.5 million peopel. London is divided into many smaller boroughs and government entities. When most people refer to London, England, they are referring to this London.

The City of London is a 2.6 square kilometer region within London. The City of London only contains a population of 9200 people. This is the original historical center of London.

Note that the City of London does not include famous landmarks such as the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben, Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London, or Tower Bridge. These locations lie outside of the City of London but within London (although I think that the Tower of London was once within the City of London).

Please contact me if you have questions about this, and please stop making changes to links to the City of London without first discussing this with other people. If you do not stop, several of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject London will be forced to go to Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard to ask for intervention. Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country edits

Your edits have been contradictory, and it's difficult to see them as having been made in good faith. Please stop, or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Please try to be more responsible with your edits. I suggest you review Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Note that your edit to Maya codicies added the statement that the Maya people were "worshiping of the devil"-- I doubt those practicing their native religion thought that was what they were doing, and if you meant that the Spanish friars considered all pagan religions to be devil worship, say that rather than making a statement that this point of view as fact. Also, this edit to Milkshake had a misleading edit summary, as it consisted of more than a spelling correction. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

As the above comments indicate, you are still editing disruptively; this includes changing British English to U.S. English spelling in articles on British subjects, making extensive unsourced changes to articles – again inappropriately changing British to U.S. spellings – with very misleading edit summaries, adding PoV material to articles, etc. If you don't stop this, you will be blocked from editing without further warning. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same nonsense on Royal Opera House article

READ the comments way up above this entry re: inclusion of "England" in articles on London.

Sevral editors have complained about your constant additions,m so STOP DOING IT. Viva-Verdi 16:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Her

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk to Her. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cornell Rockey 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You appear to making a habit of deliberately ignoring WP:ENGVAR, despite many warnings. Please desist. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jonas Brothers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Raptornet! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 328 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Peter Vives - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]