User talk:25162995

A tag has been placed on Danny p, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Danny p is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Danny p. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. --ais523 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hunwicks in hockey stuff.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hunwicks in hockey stuff.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hunwicks in hockey stuff.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hunwicks in hockey stuff.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

James alexander johns

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it 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. The article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Scientology. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Scientology. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Abrech (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Muhammad. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to People's Republic of China, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ono (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I refute the reliability of your source. Please provide a more trustworthy one before changing the information for the people's republic of China from a socialist democracy to a... dictatorship. I can assure you that you will be unable reliable source that calls china a dictatorship, however. And, under what you said, it was never declared a dictatorship. The presidency was abolished for one year, until Mao's death, during which time Mao was the only leader. So even if it did say it was a dictatorship, it was for a year, before going back to a SPD, thus not notable enough to be included in the main article. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your information on the PRC was removed again, as you havent cited anyting in the article. It isnt helpful for anyone if the "source" is in the edit summary. And I refute the neutrality, credibility and notability of the source you offered this time. As i said before, you arent going to find an irrefutable source (such as the government of China) that says they are a dictatorship. Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(And PS, you say to "read the source!!" in all your edit summaries. People obviously read the source, and they all disagree with it as a reliable source.)

June 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Unite Against Fascism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Unite Against Fascism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. We do not rely on blogs as reliable sources; they are mere opinion pieces. Please don't add this back in. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 13 June 2009 (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:Rodhullandemu. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you remove this article as vanadalism i will be forced to take further action if necessary to make sure that both sides of the story are given in the Article for the UAF. The sources provided are legitimate." So what makes this guy's views worthy of any credibility? As far as I'm concerned, it's just some guy's opinion, and almost worthless, unless he's a noted political commentator, which I don't believe he is. Rodhullandemu 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WE WILL NOT STAND TO SEE THIS DONE. STOP NOW!!!!!! ALSO, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE LEGAL THREATS. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring. During your block, please review what are reliable sources, and the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. I see no "Discuss" from you, and you've been advised on numerous occasions.. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now raised this issue here. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)