User talk:Napster964

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of Spam W@@rz

A tag has been placed on Spam W@@rz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boreas 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About that article. The spam one.

Do not encourage spam, Wikipedia is not a forum, and do not spam forums.

[edit] Spam W@@rs

What on Earth made you think not only that this was appropriate, but that putting the page about it in the main encyclopedia space was a good idea? Couldn't you be improving the encyclopedia instead? Skittle (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And since when did common sense become a good idea? like a book said - "If electricity comes from electrons, then does Morality come from morons?" --Napster964 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

and just to prove my point, you spelt spam w@@rz wrong. --Napster964 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat -- that puts you just a few keystrokes away from a permanent ban. I think you will find that you are unable to recreate your nonsensical page for the fourth time, since I've added it to a list of pages that are not permitted to be recreated. If I were you, I'd be thinking seriously about whether I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia or vandalize it. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

...Before you say anything, I was already deleting the wikipedia criticism thing whilst you were deleting it. I'd just read your reply. (apart from that, there is no rule stating that I cannot post an article against wikipedia. --Napster964 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] December 2007

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia you will be blocked. Oxymoron83 20:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

After your 48-hour block expires, I trust that you won't edit the contents of other people's talk pages again; it's considered vandalism, like nearly everything else you've ever done here. As I said above, think about whether you want to be a contributor or whether you want to be permanently unable to edit Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I'm contesting the block because the final thing that made you block me was 'How wikipedia will take over the world,' which I was deleting when my computer crashed, so I couldn't finish the job I'd only just read your above message as well, the warning. I was putting a note saying "PLEASE DELETE IMMEDIATELY" on it, but it crashed when I got to "IMMEDIA." Please read this, and consider."

Decline reason: "It doesn't change the fact that it was vandalism. You don't seem to understand why creating pages like that was inappropriate, nor have you expressed any understanding of the blocking admin's comment above. Take the two days to research some good contributions. — Haemo (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Fair Enough. Napster964 (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Google logo, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. And please don't add your signature to article content. ZimZalaBim talk 13:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to George W. Bush‎. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Accurizer (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Tour Montparnasse, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)