User talk:Indecks

Chun-Li

I don't disagree with you at all, but your edit introduced a non-neutral point of view perspective to the article and had to be removed. Don't do it again. JuJube (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - how about you go outside and get some sunlight instead of sitting and guarding wikipedia all day? Hmm? Wouldn't that be more fun that being a wikinerd?

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Fart has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to fart. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Benea (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Fart. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Fart. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Benea (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article already contains a link to Wiktionary (top right in the article). That is the appropriate place for a thesaurus, and one does already exist over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Tan ǀ 39 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Indecks! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 332 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Scott Shiflett - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]