User talk:64.131.205.160

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Mykungfu.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu for evidence. See block log
Notes for the suspect Notes for the accuser

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Alpha Phi Alpha, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. alphaChimp laudare 04:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Legit edits. take it to the talk section if you have any issues.

64.131.205.160 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you persist in removing relevant content and promoting your agenda on Wikipedia, as you have done repeatedly to Alpha Phi Alpha, you will be blocked. Please stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Marion Barry is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, what agenda is that? Pledging and Hazing is approved by a moderator. take any issues to the talk section.

64.131.205.160 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "approved by a moderator" on Wikipedia. You also have repeatedly deleted content from the article and have a history of vandalizing this and other articles as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Alpha Phi Alpha, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Blocked

You have been blocked for disruption, impersonation of admin in warnings, repeated vandalism. The length of this block is 31 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp laudare 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: "No vandalism occuring! am inquiring about reasonable discussion adn insertion of knowledge!"

Decline reason: "No. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

[1]. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Ryūlóng 07:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Kappa Alpha Psi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You must discuss the dubious assertion on the talk page before summarily removing it. Ccson 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr spam

I've blocked you for 48h for repeated 3rr spam. It will get you no-where; please give up William M. Connolley 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Omega Psi Phi

You can't remove content and say lets discuss it. The correct procedure is to talk about why it should be removed. Ccson 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha

Please do not add nonsense to Alpha Kappa Alpha without taking it to the discussion page first. You got in to trouble with Alpha Phi Alpha. If you keep this up, you will be banned, indefinately. Also, you violated the 3RR rule as well. Bearly541 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just now looked at your edits on Alpha Kappa Alpha. You totally deleted information from the page. You are this close to being reported to being indefinately banned. Bearly541 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:The Princeton Review

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Talk:The Princeton Review. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Λυδαcιτγ 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't work for the Princeton Review. The creator of the PowerScore article, however, does work for that company. And he has failed to show that the article is notable. The article also needs citations. This type of work would be helpful, and if it's done, maybe PowerScore could be listed as a competitor. But definitely don't go around spamming talk pages with Powerscore links. Λυδαcιτγ 01:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding both PowerScore and Testmasters, please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles (#7). Λυδαcιτγ 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/4/2E/User_talk%7E64.131.205.160.html"