User talk:2 port usb hub

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Handkerchief code 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. Thank you. &mdash; neuro(talk) 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A few or your recent edits appear to be vandalism.  Please stop adding nonsense into articles. —Snigbrook 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As an experienced editor, I know myself that my edits are not vandalism (at least as set out at WP:VAND), and yours are coming close to fulfilling the criteria. The next time you make an unconstructive edit to an article, I will issue you with an only warning. Have a nice day, and please refrain. &mdash; neuro(talk) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Get bent. I cited my sources and you're not the grand wizard of Wikipedia. You're not the sole arbiter of what is unconstructive or not. 2 port usb hub (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the final warning; although some edits may have been useful, you have added some errors, which appear to be deliberate, into articles, for example on Jean Baptiste Abbeloos. Although I'm unsure if the edits to Handkerchief code were vandalism, they were clearly original research. —Snigbrook 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How am I going to cite anything other than original research for an article about underground gay sex practices, which are by definition out of the mainstream and not in the public eye. There's no research on it because ALL of the claims in the article come from original research.   - 2 port usb hub (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they do not come from original research. Do not tell me to 'get bent', either, or you will find yourself getting banned finally for a lack of civility. I would template warn you over this, but warnings and blocks are not punishments, the case is stale for now, and it has been a little time since your comments. Continue down the same path, however (you may wish to note that I am monitoring your contributions at this point in time) and you no doubt will recieve a block. &mdash; neuro(talk) 07:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you told another editor to get bent, so here is how it is going to be. The next time you disruptively edit, I will report you for disruptive editing and civility issues, and you will no doubt be blocked. Now, I don't want to have to take that path, so just give up your previous interactions and start afresh, read the policy, do whatever you have to do to edit in a non-disruptive manner; because the next time you disruptively edit, you know what will happen. &mdash; neuro(talk) 07:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Floyd Paxton
A tag has been placed on Floyd Paxton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mblumber (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 01:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. —Snigbrook 02:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing does not only include vandalism. —Snigbrook 02:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been told about using reliable sources. Please stop linking to hoax pages or pages which don't claim what you say they do. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Floyd Paxton
I have nominated Floyd Paxton, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Floyd Paxton. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 03:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)   Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 03:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . 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.-Wafulz (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)