Image copyright problem with Image:AnneandStacyPicture.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:AnneandStacyPicture.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Please keep in mind Wikipedia's three-revert rule with regards to your conduct on the page Oboe. Reverting edits multiple times without discussion is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and can get a user blocked for up to 24 hours. If someone makes an edit you don't agree with, please talk about it on the corresponding talk page or give your rationale in your edit summary (for the first revert). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thanks! — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. IrishGuytalk 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Kesac 14:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Bulbapedia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Bulbapedia is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Bulbapedia saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Dreaded Walrustc 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I broadly agree with the senitment, a Wikipedia talkpage is not the place for an anti-death penalty petition. See this at the top of that page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capital punishment article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." David Underdown (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The petition is not appropriate use of the talkpage. Please stop adding it or you will probably end up being blocked for either breaking the 3 revert rule, or for disruption. I'm going to take this to WP:AN/I to get some administrator notice taken, just to confirm that my interpretation is correct. David Underdown (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my first comment above. Talk pages are discussing the content of, and improvements to the article itself, not for soap-boxing for or against what is being described. You've been blocked once, learn from it. David Underdown (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Pythian Castle appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Waggers (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours as a result of your disruptive edits to Talk:Capital punishment. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. If you persist in edits that are not in compliance with the official policies, you will be permanently blocked by the admins and your edits will be reverted on sight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum. If you are looking for a soapbox, start a blog at LiveJournal or some similar service. If you are looking for a forum, consider Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, or USENET. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the official policies have been carefully formulated by Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia community to ensure that Wikipedia content is compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. Trust me, there is NO WAY you will be able to get Jimmy Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation board, the senior admins, or the Arbitration Committee to bend on the What Wikipedia is not policy (many people have tried and have been banned by the admins or by Mr. Wales himself). Your time would be better spent identifying a subject where you can make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Daylight saving time, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you cut it out already before you get in trouble with an admin. Your move request failed, the second one (which you made the day after your first one failed) got speedy closed because a move request should not be attempted until at least a month or so after the last one. Your third attempt will also get speedy closed. At this point you could be considered disruptive (which would be grounds for a block). TJSpyke 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All very true. Please stop. – ClockworkSoul 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even after this warning, you continue to push. Your behavior is grossly inappropriate. Let it go. &ndashl ClockworkSoul 15:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeating undoing of this merge, which was decided on by Wikipedia:Consensus, is not productive. After I reverted your undoing of the merge, you should have followed the BRD cycle and started a discussion. In response to your edit summary here, you appear to be mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. There are many subjects about which we could write pages, but choose not to have that type of content. Wikipedia is not a game guide and is not intended for sprawling lists of in-game locations. Please revert back to the consensus version and start a discussion. Pagrashtak 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd looked at Talk:Kanto, you'd see that I'd already started a discussion. As for your claim that my edits violated consensus, WP:CCC.
Consensus can change, yes. But has it? We don't know, because you didn't wait to see. Until we see whether the consensus has changed or not, then your edits are going against consensus. WP:CCC doesn't give free reign to ignore any consensus. It gives us the freedom to seek a new consensus, rather than having any such attempts shot down as "consensus has already been reached on this topic". Dreaded Walrustc 16:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(to Oboeboy) Your message on Talk:Kanto, an uninvolved disambiguation page, has nothing to do with this merge. I'll ask you again to revert to the merged version and respect consensus. If you wish to discuss splitting the articles after that, you're more than welcome to. Pagrashtak 18:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Evolution, you will be blocked from editing. Acroterion(talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for an indefinite period due to your recent vandalism. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, although marking an edit as minor and stating in the edit summary that you are fixing grammar and spellings put you a step above most users who make unconstructive edits to Evolution, when an editor sees on his watchlist that you have removed in excess of 130,000 characters, they may become slightly suspicious. Whatever method you use, such edits will not remain for more than a few minutes at most, so I suggest that it isn't worth the effort. Hadrian89 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to John McCain has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Evolution, you will be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)