Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to British National Party, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Kusma(討論) 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to British National Party, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HawkerTyphoon 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. CRCulver 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. CRCulver 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! CRCulver 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Mercola.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IrishGuytalk 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
On the very first day you registered the account? Sorry, nobody's going to believe this claim. — Yamla 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
ive had the account for half a year,
Some edits have been made in good faith, and for that reason, I have reduced the block duration to two weeks. Please spend this time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have no idea why Im blocked, if you see my contributions I have made Loads of useful ones before the 4 or 5 outbursts by someone on my computer on the 18 of december, all of the ones before the 18th of december were extremely useful and by banning me, 4 or 5 articles will be missing my output. The 4 or 5 pieces of graffiti on the 18th of december I think it was, were not by me, but someone on the same computer, as i have no reason to do this. I left myself signed in, and the vandalism by the user wasnt even that bad !!!
Decline reason:
guard your computer and its password better. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
But there are several articles which I made professional and serios edits to which remain there today, and My record is fine, and is not in any way harmful, and any edits I did in the past of a graffiti nature were done in a friendly manner.
Decline reason:
There is no such thing as friendly vandalism. You are also a self-admitted sock of a more-or-less banned user; you'd have no argument anyway. I find the message in the last block in Shweeny666's block record to still be operative — Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
