User talk:Prioritism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Prioritism, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  User Dœ αTΩC 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. User Dœ αTΩC 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


The article Prioritism has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 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 New religious movement, 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: New religious movement was changed by Prioritism (u) (t) score equals -18649 on 2008-05-12T10:55:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. . Your edit of new religious movement with a misleading edit summary is not appreciated and is likely to be interpreted as vandalism. Andries (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Andries (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:ClueBot Commons. Catgut (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:16, 12 May 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: "Although I admit to several accounts of vandalism from this account, I also made several contributions to Wikipedia involving such pages as "Prioritism" and "Prioritism Religion". Upon creation of these pages, they were immediately removed for Wikipedia non-compliance. While I respect this judgement, it means that the claims of vandalism only are COMPLETELY INVALID. I would be grateful if this was taken into account and my account unbanned. Thanks - Prioritism."

Decline reason: "If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that you should not be blocked for inappropriate edits as long as someone else undoes them. You are not correct. Your unblock doesn't indicate that you understand what was wrong with your edits, or that, if unblocked, you wouldn't make similar inappropriate edits, so it is not time to unblock you. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 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.

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: "No, you do not understand correctly. What I am saying is that I did not only vandalise pages using this account. I actually used this account to create several useful pages such as "Prioritism". However, they were deleted, but not for vandalism offenses. I did not say anything that could even POSSIBLY be construed as me saying that vandalism is OK if it is reverted. I feel that the above comment from FisherQueen is simply ridiculing what I have said. This account is used also by my son who made several vandalisms from it. I have now banned him from this account and it will not occur again."

Decline reason: "Your contribution history shows no constructive edits to Wikipedia, and there is no reason to believe that you understand the nature of this block. You are also responsible for all edits from this account, regardless of the person at the keyboard when the edits occurred (son or otherwise). —Kinu t/c 12:48, 10 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.