User talk:Securitash

May 2017

Hi, Securitash. Was that text on your userpage, and in your sandbox, composed by a Markov babbler? That's not exactly what your userpage is for. It has been deleted by an administrator (JamesBWatson above) because Wikipedia is not a webhost. Please see Wikipedia:User pages for the purpose of userpages. The sandbox is still there, but it's not exactly the way to compose articles here, either... You're welcome to ask me on my talkpage or at the Teahouse if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Unconstructive editing

I have again removed content from this page which does not belong here. If you think what you are doing is a constructive step towards contributing to the project to build an encyclopaedia, then please explain why, as it does not appear to be so. If you continue to edit in the same way you may be blocked from editing by an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will be. Securitash, you didn't choose to answer JamesBWatson's original comment, nor my own previous, friendly, question. Here's another, that I suggest you do engage with: Why are you pasting dialogue by others from 2008, which has nothing to do with this account, on this page? Does it concern a previous account of yours? Wikipedia is not for nonsense, which is all you have contributed so far. If you're not willing to respond to questions about it, I will block you as not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Disengage Talk Please...

Un constructive edits are promotional. They lead one to believe I am not a contributor. I have been accused of sock puppet and containing an account of false positive. Can you provide be an analysis of my edit history as I asked I agree it reconciles my era and disengages talk? Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 17:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

...what? You have not been accused of promotional editing nor of sockpuppetry. As for "containing an account of false positive" and "an analysis of my edit history as I asked I agree it reconciles my era and disengages talk", I don't know what any of it means. You have been accused of contributing only nonsense, and of not responding to good-faith questions. The incoherence of this answer makes me wonder if you're simply a troll. Did you run it through a babbler, too? Either respond responsively or be blocked. Last chance. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Concur w/ bishonen. The appearance of your edits is that of someone not here to further the projects goals. Dloh cierekim 02:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Inline long quote, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Deor (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]