User talk:Powerpleb

This is your vandalism warning. Vandalize zionism again and you will be blocked. &rarr;Raul654 04:50, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

what do you mean vandalise?

Another thing I should let you know - you have now been reverted 3 times by 3 seperate editors within 24 hours. See [the three revert rule policy. If you add the same already-reverted material again, you will be in violation of the rules. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 05:43, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oops. I did add the material again but it was slightly modified. Am I still in violation of the rules? If so, am I going to be banned? Powerpleb 05:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No, but consider yourself warned. In general, we're pretty lenient on new users who don't yet know the rules. &rarr;Raul654 05:58, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK thank you. I should have probably looked before posting. I'll be more careful in the future. And thanks for allowing my contribution to stay. Powerpleb 06:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Salogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Salogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Red bloc


The article Red bloc has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Original research and a neologism. Google Books and Scholar turn up no relevant uses in reliable sources, and no substantial discussion in reliable sources. The only reference that has ever been in the article is an unreliable source that only mentions the topic in passing."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Red bloc for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red bloc is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Red bloc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)