User talk:Beautyexpert

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Daintree Rainforest has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Mephistophelian † 01:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Mephistophelian. I am fairly new to Wipipedia and would have thought that my comments are constructive as I am a leader in my field.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Taylors Lakes, Victoria. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe my comments were a vehicle for advertising or promotion, when in fact it is a very interesting fact for the area, why did you leave "Safeway" in the article? I left a detailed message regarding this on your discussion page and you didn't reply to me and removed it from your site when it was extremely constructive discussions. you seem to only kept on your talk page articles that make you look good. You say you are a proud Aussie. Most proud Aussie will listen to experts like me and take note.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Roc Kirby. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that Bidgee for some reason has taken a disliking to me as this can be sourced. Why didn't your note the comment with unsourced and it could have been sourced.

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to White Earth Land Recovery Project, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bidgee (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I know the source and they are unreliable. The more I am using Wikipedia the more unreliable I am finding the information. There seems to be a team of people who police the additions and deletions. This is fantastic IF THEY know something about the subject or the referenced people who are making the comments.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke! I am blocked from editing for my account being used ONLY for vandalism. I am a high profile editor in my industry and am adding important information to add credibility to Wikipedia. If I am not IMMEDIATELY unblocked I will have to report on what is going on here. This is the Wikipedia definition of Vandalism and my site is NOT set ONLY for vandalism. My comments are in good faith to improve Wikipedia. That why I now see Wikikpedia as a place where ANYBODY makes a comment in relation to "perceived" vandalism and ignores carefully manipulated additions which on some pages are totally not true. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.