User talk:Liquid cells

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:User page[edit]

Hi there, I reverted your edit to Wikipedia talk:User page as it just said "A". I don't know if it was a test edit, or if you meant to add a message or a question there. If so, feel free to edit it again. --Beloved Freak 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Record of Val-Kyrie[edit]

I have nominated Record of Val-Kyrie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record of Val-Kyrie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Whpq (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at USS Oak Hill (LSD-51), you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to USS Oak Hill (LSD-51). Calabe 1992 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. YOU are violating the neutrality. I was in attendance, and you are not representing the OTHER half of the group that did not applaud or believe this was great.

Notice[edit]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calabe 1992 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your edits are reverted repeatedly, you must discuss the matter on the article's talk page, not keep reverting[edit]

Your recent editing history at USS Oak Hill (LSD-51) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Calabe 1992 02:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Liquid cells. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

USS Oak Hill[edit]

You might try Conservapedia and see if they have any reliable sourcing on your side of this news story, assuming they even covered the story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liquid cells, yes, please do try to find a reliable source such as a newspaper or media outlet. I can assist in any way. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]