User talk:Afrasclient

In response to your feedback
What article were you editing?

SwisterTwister  talk  19:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160; Actually I was trying to create a new article Heard a couple of jokes lately from Joann Flanagan author of "Trump Jokes By The Gross" and "Clinton Jokes By The Gross": Why does Bernie Sanders wear a hip flask in his back pocket? So he'll be ready in case one of the Clintons bite him. Why does Donald Trump have such small hands? He's never stretched them doing an honest days work.

In response to your feedback
Hi, please be specific on what your saying, because I can't understand. Please tell me specifically on my talk page, thanks.

Webclient101 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Saint Afra‎
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Saint Afra‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry you feel that way.No hard feelings.

Saint Afra
Hi. I saw that you made an edit to the Saint Afra page. However, I had to revert it, as it seemed like a short story or fictional biography. Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts. If you wish to write fiction, I would suggest FanFiction.Net instead of Wikipedia. Brambleberry of RiverClan Mew ♠ Tail 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Your information has been removed because it appears to be fictitious. Additionally, the content is excessively large and overwhelming the article. To learn how to edit constructively, visit Help:Contents. If you have questions, contact me at my talk page.

SwisterTwister  talk  20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160; Sorry you feel that way. No hard feelings.

In response to your feedback
Hi, sorry about that. Please contact me on my talk page for your talk page, thanks.

Webclient101 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Speedy deletion nomination of Communism in reveiw;bibliography of works relating cold war


A tag has been placed on Communism in reveiw;bibliography of works relating cold war requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WikiPuppies! (bark) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Actually I was trying to ask a question:Would an article written along these lines be acceptible? That's why there were no contents. Sorry if I got it wrong.

In response to your feedback
Although it seems you had the best intentions, starting articles containing only questions is not the best way to attract answers. To answer your question, an article written along those lines would not be acceptable because it would contain an inappropriate title. The semi-colon between the text would suggest a section, and a section title for an article wouldn't be appropiate. If you have questions, visit Help desk, Help:Contents or contact me at my talk page.

SwisterTwister  talk  00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Kathleen Sebelius have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Silly me! I thought a statement had to be historically inaccurate to be considered libelous! thank you for informing me that the truth can aslo be libalous! Afrasclient

January 2013
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. ''Please take this request seriously. Thanks.'' Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you need to follow

 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Article content should be relevant. Just because a concept is mentioned in a book or movie does not mean the book or movie should be mentioned in that concept's article.
 * Minor edits are those that add or remove little content, and mainly consists of undoing undeniable vandalism or fixing grammar, spelling, or formatting errors.

Treating Montague Summers' suspect and superstitious fairy tale as the truth was inappropriate, as was using it to advocate a particular point of view. You have been asked not to mark edits as minor if they are not minor. If you continue this inappropriate behavior, the administrators may block your account. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm RolandR. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Vladimir Lenin because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! RolandR (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Communism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Siberia, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Soviet Union, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Have not used my account for vandalism. Have only offered constructive suggestions administraters were free to accept or reject as they pleased. Afrasclient (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

yahoo
Users often complain that yahoo blocks log on unneccessarily though they give correct passwords. What is your view on the subject? Do you believe yahoo is unvariably satisfactory? Afrasclient (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)