User talk:Zippogeek

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rock Ranger[edit]

Just so you know, an article is not going to be deleted simply because you don't like it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 12:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

This is your only warning; if you post an improperly placed joke on Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Black Rock Ranger, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you use defamatory or insulting language once more in any edit summary, you shall be blocked to prevent further disruption . DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to BFU, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: BFU was changed by Zippogeek (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.985981 on 2011-11-15T23:57:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to BFU. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Chzz ► 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "...I can edit this page all day, a$$hole!" - no, you can't. Once more, and you will be blocked. Thanks for listening. Chzz ► 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "I have more logins and IP addresses than you've got brain cells" - we've got more vandal-fighters, and plenty of technical tools to prevent disruption. Besides which, the information you add will be removed within minutes. Really, what is the point? Genuine question. Chzz ► 01:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Chzz ► 05:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) 07:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your use of a sockpuppet to evade your block, I have extended it to one month. Any further issues will almost certainly mean the next block is indefinite. Black Kite (t) 14:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A review of your contributions has resulted in the block being changed to indefinite on account of long-term civility issues on top of the vandalism to multiple pages and disruptive socking. Please read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:CIVIL, WP:N and WP:EW before requesting unblocking. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]