User talk:RipKurtDonaldCobain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent RipKurtDonaldCobain (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Speedy deletion of Mathew regan

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Woland (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All articles have to have verifiable, reliable sources to prove that what they say is true. They also have to discuss notable topics. The Mathew regan article did not appear to do any of these things. If you have reliable sources that show that this person is noteworthy for something, then an article might work. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect; if you don't have sources, then perhaps your article might work better on some other website. We have standards here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Isepamicin, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Isepamicin was changed by RipKurtDonaldCobain (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2008-06-06T18:56:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (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: "Ah come on I was only joking"

Decline reason: "I'm sure you understand that the kind of person who vandalizes for fun is not the kind of person we allow to edit. It's the same reason that, if people start breaking my stuff, I ask them to leave my home. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (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.

You were asked to stop, a few times, and didn't. What's to say you won't just start up again, this time? We extend a lot of trust to people; it's not exactly polite the betray that trust and damage the hard work of others, wouldn't you say? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008

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: "Well no actually I would disagree with you. All I did was try and set up a page amount a person in my local area and then have the audacity to question why it had been deleted. I don't think this qualifies as "betraying that trust and damaging the hard work of others". In fact I would suggest to you that prohibiting me from editing and then deleting my comments from certain talk pages is tantamount to fascism and I'm sure you don't want Wikipedia's brilliant reputation to be tarnished by such accusations. Also I still haven't been told where I'm supposed to obtain these references from! And finally I would like to reiterate the point that I was only joking! There's no need to be so uptight about it! I await your response with baited breath."

Decline reason: "Yes, of course, it's not you creating attack pages that is the problem, everyone else is. Goodbye. —  Sandstein  21:08, 6 June 2008 (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.

Erm sorry I don't know why my response is in the administrators only part as well.