User talk:Pudendum

November 2014
Hello, I'm Barek. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Sugar Loaf, New York, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Sugar Loaf, New York. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Please read WP:BIO for guidance on how to establish a "notable person" within Wikipedia's guidelines. In short, third-party reliable sources are required (a website created by the person or a marketing page for their product does not meet the criteria of being a third-party reliable source). Repeated re-addition of the person without resolving this requirement is disruptive, and can potentially result in your account being blocked should you persist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Bfugett may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Your recent editing history at Sugar Loaf, New York shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SQGibbon (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bob Fugett


The article Bob Fugett has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Subject does not appear to be notable. Was involved in an incident that has not been cited to any reliable source. At the very least WP:SINGLEEVENT applies.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SQGibbon (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

March 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jay Westerveld. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Mary Endico page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=679105752 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F679105752%7CMary Endico%5D%5D Ask for help])

August 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mary Endico. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:Bfugett. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)