User talk:Dagnel

March 2008
I've noticed your recent edits to Wikipedia, and I'm contacting you now to hopefully kindly explain why they have been problematic. While I might have some criticisms of your editing, I believe you were editing in good faith, and I'd like you to understand wikipedia policy and guidelines better so that in the future you can become an active and productive wikipedian! It seems like some of your edits were made to promote a website. Adding external links saying "Visit" some website to multiple off topic articles is a form of spamming (see WP:SPAM). St Joseph Shrine's shrine does not have much of anything to do with an encyclopedia article about the person. Because of the sheer amount of things named after "St. Joseph", we simply cannot list all of them (especially the less notable ones) in articles. We have disambiguation pages for that purpose (see Saint Joseph (disambiguation) and Saint Joseph's for example). Also, when you create new articles, you need to make sure that they meet a certain standard. Your first article is a good start. You need to make sure that subjects of articles meet notability standards, and that the notability is explained in the article. It is also a very good idea to make sure your contributions are verifiable. We often do that by attributing content to reliable sources, using citations. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask, and I urge you to read up on some of these links. Good luck!-Andrew c [talk] 13:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove cleanup and other maintenance tags from articles without first addressing those issues. If an article is unsourced, poorly formatted, and uncategorized, the obvious solution is to add sources, categories and formatting. Removing the tags does not make the problems go away. If you continue to remove the tags without addressing the issues, it will be a form of disruptive editing. If you have any questions about why the article is tagged as such, or more general questions about wikipedia, feel free to ask. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 13:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing valid warnings from articles. As I said above, if you want the warnings removed, fix the problems. Also, avoid edit warring. Repetitively undoing the work of others is a form of disruptive editing. Please see WP:3RR for more info. If you have any questions, ask before you run into more problems. -Andrew c [talk] 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -Andrew c [talk] 11:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Stop blanking valid page warnings. I have blocked you for a third time for your refusal to comply. If you want to remove the uncategorized tag, all you need to do is add categories. To remove the unreferenced tag, all you need to do is add references. It really is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. I know you are new, and I want to encourage you to become a productive editor. If you don't understand how wikipedia works, try to educate yourself and read up on our policies, or ask questions to find out more. However, continued blanking of valid page warnings will not be tolerated. I hope you understand. When your block expires, please consider all of this, and try to find a way to be productive here. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Shrine Church
Another editor has added the  template to the article St. Joseph's Shrine Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

St.Teresa's Church, Sembium
Another editor has added the  template to the article St.Teresa's Church, Sembium, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles
I have tagged St Joseph Shrine and St.Teresa's Church, Sembium, two articles you have created, for deletion discussion, because I do not believe that articles on those topics can be written within our guidelines. Please, under no circumstances, remove the deletion tags from these articles, but instead, weigh in and voice your opinion concerning their proposed deletion at Articles for deletion/St.Teresa's Church, Sembium and Articles for deletion/St Joseph Shrine. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)