User talk:Asd-ste100

Simplified English
Asd-ste100: Professional practice is to explain the reason that you think a piece of information should be included in an article if it has been previously removed. Preferably, you should do so with the person who removed it (myself) before you add it again. The reason I initially withdrew your edit is because it disregards the terms of WP:ELNO. Please click on that link, and view #1, #4, #5, and #19, specifically. NTox · talk 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I am responsible for asking: does your account represent STEMG, Shufra, or any other organization? NTox · talk 18:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. NTox · talk 18:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A message in Simplified English
We aren't here to provide free advertising. Stop posting your fucking link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Simplified English. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Simplified English. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)