User talk:Bisshu


 * oihiuh

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Earth/Selected article/4
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Portal:Earth/Selected article/4, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Name of sapnish armada


The article Name of sapnish armada has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Already covered in Spanish Armada

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Synagogue, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ''Hi - I'm sorry but your contribution read like a personal essay, and was not appropriate for an encyclopaedia page. You might want to have a look at the article's Talk page and discuss it there if you want to make major changes or feel that the current content needs revision. Thanks and best wishes. '' DBaK (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
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 Boulogne-sur-Mer, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * 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 produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please 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: Boulogne-sur-Mer was changed by Bisshu (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-07-02T10:59:05+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Boulogne-sur-Mer. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
All of this editors' edits have been forms of vandalism or disruptive editing. Although this editor has been I have blocked this editor indefinitely. Although this editor has been a WP user for 11 months and has been warned repeatedly about inappropriate editing, her behavior has not changed. After 11 months an editor should know better; ifnot it is hard to continue to assume good faith.

If this individual truly wishes to edit Wikipedia, she has to do a few things over the next three or four months. Read the core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR as well as WP:NOT carefully, and follow any discussions on their talk pages, over a period of several months, to get a real understanding of WP policy. Also, watche a few articles you are really interested in; study the style, again pay attention to discussions on talk pages, to learn how wikipedians collaborate. It would be good to watch some articles on controversial topics, where editors are often in conflict, to see how wikipedians with different views can learn to cooperate, to learn where policy is necessary to guide editing, and to learn what kinds of edits are inappropriate and quicky rejected. After doing this for several months, if this individual believes she can make a real contribution to an encyclopedia, and work with our policies, she can explain (1) why she has a history of 11 months of disruptive editing and vandalism, and (2) how she has changed. This kind of change won't happen overnight. But if, three or four or five months from now this person really understands how people go about researching and contributing to articles in constructive and enduring ways, she can petition an administrator to lift my block. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)