Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you recently removed some content 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 the 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.--John (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

from drew270 -I have several times amended clement frauds pf and explained why! drew270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs)

Drew270, you need to explain your edits at Talk:Clement Freud. You should read WP:LEAD first. --John (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drew270. I think this may be a borderline case. I have opened a thread at the Talk Page to discuss this topic. I hope you will join in there. Thanks,. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wiki for some reason wont let me join the talk page!

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Doris Speed, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Helper214 (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Peter Kay. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you cite - Ancestry.com, Find-a-grave, and the Matt Gunther website - are reliable sources for saying that a person is dead. I'm sure that's frustrating, but the rules here are crystal clear. Please stop re-inserting this information without a rock-solid, reliable source. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread on the Matt Gunther talk page for further discussion. I've also invited additional editors to join the conversation with a post to the BLP Noticeboard, here. Please join me in conversation on the article talk page. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've left a message on my talk page saying there is no Matt Gunther talk page. But there is. You can find it here. David in DC (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Drew270/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Drew270, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by In veritas was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Drew270/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

In veritas (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Big Brother 9 housemates (UK), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if you continue to revert other editors so that your preferred version remains, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply will you stop intimidating me please!

it was reverted by yourself 3 times and no need too!

you seem to have put yourself as a follower of myself...also if it wasnt for myself the parargrapg would read totally differently.no one put a new paragraph in about the bbc it was just carried on from his death,that wrong altogether..as soon as i see a fault im pounce on from way up high from person i feel are stalking,,ie yourself thankyou

Your recent editing history at George Michael 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 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. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:47, 11 @Mlpearc No i do not but you yourself keep reverting other peoples work on here.why is that?Drew270 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)drew270[reply]

You wrote: Gross error in date of death. Can't seem to make my change of his date age of death stick. It's in his daughter's memoirs: he died at age 83 in 1919 and NOT IN 1913 AT AGE 77 as your article points out.I trierd too it does want to take these dates.
I suggest you take this to the article's talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did that. I will add your reasoning there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sara Cox, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)egghed06 yes i did do.i folowed it on tv all night long,and that is the bbc,also it advertises in the manchester evening news about how how much she raised so did the bbc,,,whys that not enough?16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)drew270

another person has now cited my alteration ,which means its correct!

if this going to be so petty?,,do u need citation for dob for every person on wiki?.etc etcDrew270 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Drew270[reply]

Hello, Drew270. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 14:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warren Clarke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Down to Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this shows up in down to earth tv british series 2000..he appeard in this but wiki does not recognise this tv series

You've been reverted by five different editors now. Please note that the addition does not have consensus and should not be re-added. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Prince Harry 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 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. General Ization ^Talk 01:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did on User:General Ization. Your edit appears to constitute vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges.

Additionally, please remember to stay civil. Thank you. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 02:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please post on talk pages

Hi.
Regarding your revision mentioned above and this revision, please do not post comments on user pages.

If you want to discuss something, post it on a user’s talk page. For help, see Help:Talk pages. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 02:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but your pf says you only suggest you sometimes edit persons pages not that your and editor as your pafe says!!?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 2:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

i do stay civil,but bullying isnt making things pleasant,plusyou dont know uk royals heritage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 2:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

talk pages on here are total waste of time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 2:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring at the noticeboard. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: He was already notified earlier but removed the post. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 02:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]