User talk:Knowhands enjoykeep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Knowhands enjoykeep! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of List of sexual slurs

A tag has been placed on List of sexual slurs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — MrSomeone ^(tlk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As you are the creator of this page your removal of the deletion template is inappropriate and has been reverted. If you object to the page being deleted you should follow the instructions detailed in the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the reviewing administrator, I see the current version as an expansion over what was previously deleted, adding substantial discussion,not presently transwikified, and that to a considerable extent addresses the objections raised, I've declined to delete it as a repost, but I expect it will be challenged again at AfD. It would help significantly if discussion and references were added for individual items--at least some ofthem as a start.DGG (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to my talk page

Please, be civil --AussieLegend (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove tags

Reasonable "fact" tags should not be removed without discussion unless a citation is added. Slang not commonly known or supported indirectly by the references in a WP article needs a reference. What counts as a RS for this purpose can I think be interpreted very broadly, but some sort of support is needed. The basic principle of WP:Verifiability must be followed. We ought to allow a good while for sourcing of a long article such as List of sexual slurs, but it must be done. Local slang that might be unfamiliar to most users seems to me a reasonable priority. given the nature of the internet, there should be sources. Continued removal of such tags can be properly considered vandalism.DGG (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Mac OS X do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uC4TDxumWI) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mac OS X. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. V-train (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're an idiot. You took sides of the dispute and blocked me. That's against policy, you hypocrite.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I rolled back your most recent edit to the original version which is policy. I could care less which version is the "correct" version. And attacking people is not going to help your situation. -Djsasso (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You better give me a link that says that. I certainly don't respect you enough to kiss up to you, that's for sure. I'm just telling the truth. You just fell into a snake's den.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides you did violate 3RR. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Knowhands_enjoykeep_reported_by_V-train_.28talk.29_.28Result:_24_hours.29 -Djsasso (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

[edit] May 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mac OS X. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 Hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that personal attacks may cause your block to be extended and your talk page protected for the duration of your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X article

I again have removed the language provision criticism you continue to post as the source given is not viewable, which means it cannot be verified and thus is not welcome on an encyclopaedia. See WP:V. If you continue to repost information in contravention of the verifiability and NPOV policies it could be construed as vandalism. Consider using the talk page on the Mac OS X article to discuss any further edits to help form a consensus and to avoid further infractions of policy being reported to administrators. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pages only viewable by you do not satisfy requirements here, and will be removed by me or other editors (as has already been done). If adhering to the rules is 'whining' then I'll continue to do so and will report violations since I don't have time to deal with people and their personalities. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive edits

If you aren't even going to make even a cursory attempt at working with other editors, then we can always start another block. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to User talk:AlistairMcMillan has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You've been blocked from editing twice and immediately upon returning to edit you continue with the edits that got you blocked in the first place. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alistair beat me to it but I was also about to indefinitely block your account for your failure to discuss contentious edits that do not have a consensus for inclusion. If you are serious about ever getting unblocked then you will need to think long and hard about whether you can be prepared to work with other people in a constructive way. You know your way to the unblock template but I would expect some seriously compelling undertakings before any request could be taken seriously. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)