User talk:Ctrexpress

Notability of Mmval.net
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mmval.net, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mmval.net is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mmval.net, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Miroslav Perkovic has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. 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. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Miroslav Perkovic constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Miroslav Perkovic. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 19:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Miroslav Perkovic.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 19:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC) You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for persistant content removal without giving a reason.. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text below. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have NO page - no one owns any page here, not even the user pages. Editing of all pages is a grant provided to good editors by the Wikipedia Foundation  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please tell us what changes you would make if you were unblocked.  Sandstein  07:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Having already declined one of your unblock requests I will leave it to another administrator to assess this one. However, it may be of use to you to suggest that you clarify the wording, because in its present form it is not clear what your reason for requesting an unblock is. Also what does your remark about copyright mean? If it means that you claim copyright on your contributions, then you should be aware that by posting material to Wikipedia you release it irrevocably under a very broad free license. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to second this. I really do not understand what you are trying to say. I fear this may have to be declined as an inadmissible request if too many others have this difficulty. - Vianello (Talk) 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Milica Lukic


The article Milica Lukic has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  10:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)