User talk:70.100.146.236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my discussions page since im an unregistered user I dont have my own page and im given a lack of respect from registered users. Usually unregistered users arent taken seriously like me but im fine with that. A majority of unregistered users vandalize so I can see this as a legitamite sterotype.

Contents

[edit] User:Ownage2214

Comments to users are left on the user's Talk page, in this case here: User Talk:Ownage2214. The page you left those messages on is intended for the User to describe himself; Ownage2214 will not be notified if you leave him messages there. Owen× ☎ 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page deletion

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The next time you vandalize or blank your talk page, I will request protection so that you can't edit it. NHRHS2010 Talk 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I asked User:DerHexer to semi-protect this talk page so that you can't edit it. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:DerHexer, you will be blocked from editing. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Cant I Delete Messages

Give me an answer to that.

Because if the warnings are legitimate, you shouldn't delete them as deleting them is disruptive. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 7 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 polices concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.—DerHexer (Talk) 21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


The most intresting thing about this website is the fact that even if the administrators act authoritative this website is not authoritatize. This website is notorious for being edited and run by teenagers. Which is basically a joke teenagers struggle with running their own lives in High School and their own emotions and still have much to learn in life. The reason its uncalled for teenagers running this website is that they still have much to learn and cant let other kids post illegitamite edits that are either vandilism or uncalled for.

Can someone respond to me about the teenage thing because most users claim to be between the ages of 13 to 17.

Can someone respond to the point I made.

[edit] Teenagers running Wikipedia

Teenagers dont hold the full capacity of knowledge to run a website thats supposed to be legitamite instead letting others edit with untrue statements.

I highly doubt that most of the regular editors are 13-17. Based on their behavior, I would place them in their twenties or thirties. As for the vandals, I suspect that you are correct that many are bored teenagers messing around, but vandals make up a small portion of our edits, and judging editor's merit based on their age is, well, ageism. As for it not being authoritative, it is descent, but as with every reference source, you have to use common sense when discerning whether a fact is correct or not.
As an aside, if you want to get help on something, try asking the help desk. It was only by chance that I happened to see this question.--Max Talk (+) 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)