User talk:PSNMand

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page RTZ (album) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.Mundo (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. 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.

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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Monica goodchild. 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. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Monica goodchild. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read the template instructions. Vianello (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on WGCenter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. 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. Kralizec! (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:PSNMand/WGCenter, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:User:PSNMand/WGCenter|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to MiniMonkey, you will be blocked from editing. Peasantwarrior (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 3#Template:Aap is a bit unclear. You state that "It is an ongoing habit to the users at Wikipedia". What is an ongoing habit? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrain from making useless comments in TfD discussions, as you did with this edit. Such discussions are not a strict voting system, but an attempt to reach consensus. Opinions without backing are generally ignored by the admins, but they do tend to clog up the mechanism, and as such constitute a form of vandalism. As I note that your account has already been blocked once, you might want to take a breather on such "fun" edits or risk being permanently blocked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put that template on pages. The template will most likely be deleted beacuse there is a similar one that is to be put on talk pages not the article. Kyle1278 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of this template did not complete correctly (the nomination did not appear at the Tfd page as intended). If you still feel this template should be deleted, please renominate it, and follow the directions more carefully. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 3, you will be blocked from editing. Smallman12q (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for sockpuppetry. If you abuse multiple accounts again, you will be blocked. Useight (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Wikipedia:NOMORE. You promoted a proposed policy to policy. Promotion to policy should happen after a long discussion where the consensus is in favor of promotion. This hasn't happened here. In fact, the consensus appears to be leaning the other direction, and I expect this to be failed or marked as an essay in the coming weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to edit polciies or participate in significant discussions about changing them using a sock puppet account.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my good contribrutions just so you could keep me from being unbanned?!! PSNMand (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Nothing lasts forever in real life or virtually.I will come back a new account without no knowledge.Your just lasting your life when you could be finding a cure for AIDS or the Common Cold HAHAHAHA.

Decline reason:

Oh no! God help us all! It's not like we can't just block that too. Here's an idea - while you're blocked, why don't you look for cures. Much better than sockpuppetry, I'm sure.  GARDEN  19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.