User talk:216.164.203.90: Difference between revisions

This is a message to KimvdLinde: "DO NOT MODIFY MY POSTS! Also, I DO NOT want you posting on my talk page!! Got that FUCKER?" 216.164.203.90 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you better read WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Vandalism. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 216.164.203.90! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Gray Wolf on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah right, it is complete nonsence. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the next time, you get blocked. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not as lomng as you are vandalizing the page with adding nonsense. Copnsider to add some real stuff. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Gray Wolf. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 05:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. RadioKirk talk to me 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, but please desist in the repeated modifications to dog breeding articles. These additions have been deemed to be unhelpful. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon your return, may we ask that you please read and become familiar with WP:CITE and WP:RS. The overriding factor with an encyclopedia must be, as stated, ""verifiability, not truth". We hope you will join us as a productive editor to Wikipedia. RadioKirk talk to me 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

216.164.203.90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Someone kept removing my contibution

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Someone kept removing my contibution |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibution |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibution |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Your "contribution" has been removed by another user who has deemed it "utter nonsense". Regardless, Wikipedia policy demands all data include a citation from a reliable source, and your "contribution" cannot be allowed until you can provide such a source. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

216.164.203.90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}