User talk:Clab6

Hello, Clab6! Hello and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Roseland, California[edit]

Clab6, I understand that you're fairly new to Wikipedia, but there are ways to put something up for deletion that work, and this isn't one of them.

Some of the problems with the AFD you tried to create:

You also added a {{merge}} tag to the article. Do you want to merge it, or delete it? Merging doesn't require an AFD.
Your deletion reason, "This is a neighborhood area of Santa Rosa, if anything, it should be merged with Santa Rosa, California," isn't a reason for deletion; it's more of a reason to merge.
You didn't follow the directions at how to list pages for deletion. You did step one, part of step two, and skipped step three.
You didn't notify editors who previously contributed to the article.

Consequently, I've removed the AFD notice again. Could we please take this discussion over to the article's talk page? Thanks, Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California) 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. Lucas20 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...What the hell?

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Bible. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't vandalism. your edit was, though

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 Bible. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have yet to tell me what makes it vandalism

Nonsense miscategorization is vandalism. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't nonsense, therefore not vandalism

Just letting you know that you have been reported to the admins for vandalism. Whether or not you feel what you are doing is vandalism, since you have repeatedly made the same edit after being warned, you have been reported. You will most likely be blocked from editing this page in the future. I recommend that you stop making the same edit and start a discussion on the talk page. It is the only chance you have of making your edit stick. Goalie1998 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've done nothing wrong, i asked you to take it to the talk page (yes, i know all of those accounts are the same person)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time 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.

Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 26 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).

Clab6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my edit kept getting removed for no reason.

Decline reason:

In the end, you violated the three-revert rule, and that is the reason for your block. You asked others to take the issue to the talk page, but you never went there to discuss the edit yourself. And as someone who is not religious, it is still clear that the edit you were trying to make represents a controversial change. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 26 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.

Even though you are unable to make any edits yourself, I still think you should start a discussion on the talk page. If you reach a consensus, your edit might stick. Goalie1998 (talk) 04:07, 26 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).

Clab6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

it would appear my brother has used wikipedia abusively with another account, and it has affected me with an IP thing

Decline reason:

We tend not to accept explanations about my brother/sister/son/friend/room-mate/pet rabbit used my computer/account/username. Your block is a short one. Perhaps you could spent the time reviewing wikipedia policies? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:30, 28 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.

April 2009[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Twilight (novel), 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. Andrea (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's not romance. simple as that.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Twilight (novel), you will be blocked from editing. Andrea (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow you didnt even see what i said did you?

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 at Twilight (novel). 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} how do i find the revision history of a deleted article

You can't. Try asking an administrator. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: normal users can't, only administrators can. Asking an admin specifying what you want might be the best course of action. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MataNui44 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Further comments: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MataNui44

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.