User talk:194.153.138.23

You are User:Dromeaz and you are blocked from editing Wikipedia. All your edits will be reverted until the block is removed. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SCAM

You are controlling a page you have a vested interest in!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Syrthiss (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2013

Your edits to February 10

Some of your edits on the page February 10 have been undone by PseudoBot, a robot built to keep the date pages tidy. The problems are:

The person you added doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page.

If the page exists, check that you've spelled and capitalized the name the same way as the article, and try again. If it doesn't yet exist, read this page carefully before creating it. In particular, you shouldn't create a page about yourself or anyone you know personally. If this bot has got it wrong (as can unfortunately happen), please accept its author's apologies, and (if you would like) leave a message on this talk page with the details, so it can be improved. Please see this page for help. PseudoBot (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Block evasion

I was coming to caution you about edit warring until I saw that you had been previously blocked as a sock of User:Dromeaz. Evidently, you are still using this account in spite of the block. I have accordingly blocked the IP. If you wish to contribute constructively, you need to negotiate an unblock of that account, as you have been previously advised. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You are unable to prove what you write because you do not have a reference. Plus it is rather irrelevant to the story. And because I do not agree with *you* I am blocked, treated like a "vandal" etc etc. How ridiculous. It is *you* who thinks you own this page. No reference means you cannot state it, otherwise how can you prove it? Where's the reference?

You are not even removing all of the content sourced to that article, but cherry-picking the content you remove. The content you are removing has been in the article for five years. None of which changes the fact that you were blocked for refusal to follow Wikipedia's rules and are not welcome to contribute to articles. You know what your other options are already, but if you'd like a reminder of how to request unblocking or how to reach out to the volunteer email response team, I'm happy to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I wanted to remove all content relating to that article, but I ddin't for fear of being called a "vandal". It should be removed. Why? Because it is unprovable. Doesn't matter how long it's been there. Fact is, it's not provable. Why hang onto it? Don't assume that everyone has time to get to know how to use this web site... so i have a simple request: *please* would you remove all content relating to no. 14? What's the big deal?

Reference no. 14 is not The Telegraph, but The Times and, and as stated it is a dead link and your personal assertions are not supported with any reference. Please would you remove all text that is unprovable and related to that reference?

Please check your e-mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.170.214 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I got your email, but I'm afraid that I can't discuss volunteer matters when I'm at work.

I understand that you would like this content removed, but Wikipedia does not remove content just because a link goes dead. That doesn't mean the material was not published and is not verifiable; it simply means that it is no longer where it was online. As Wikipedia:Link rot notes:

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.

Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available.

In this case, the new home for that article has been located - it is now here.

Describing content as "your personal assertions" is highly inaccurate, and I believe you know this. Our goal on Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects in due weight. The article is scrupulously sourced and has been for years. If you think balance can be improved or if there are other reliable sources that are being omitted, that's certainly worth addressing. But in terms of removing sources because of a disagreement with them, Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight - as reliable sources discuss subjects, articles evolve to reflect that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough

Add anything like this again and you will be reported to WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP disruption of talk page. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I am merely asking for ONE of the TWO duplicate links on the Talk page to be removed. That is it. That is not disruption.