User talk:RobinHammon

Welcome!

Hello, RobinHammon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RobinHammon reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: ). Thank you. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Cathemerality

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 14:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Labour Party (UK)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RobinHammon reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015 Paris attacks

You added (diff) a mention of an attack near the Eiffel Tower to this article. Do you have a source for this? -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pulse (nightclub), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2016 Nice attack, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not re-add information about a hostage-taking, until there is widespread news of such an event, and provide multiple references. The Daily Mail does not qualify as a reliable source. Thanks. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 22:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a mass shooting needs victims, not just shots in a crowd. This says he only got his gun out. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on London

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page London, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]