User talk:Saclark1963

Nomination of Wikipedia:Steven Clark for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia:Steven Clark 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Steven Clark until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. O.Koslowski (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Wikipedia:Steven Clark. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. O.Koslowski (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. O.Koslowski (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Steven, and welcome to editing Wikipedia. I hope you will go on to make significant and useful contributions to the encyclopaedia. However, there are some problems with your editing so far, suggesting that you do not have a full grasp of the nature of Wikipedia. #The pages you have written look like articles for the encyclopaedia, in which case they should have titles like Steven Clark, not Steven Clark. The Wikipedia namespace is for pages relating to the processes of editing and administering the encyclopaedia, not for articles about subjects unconnected with Wikipedia.
 * 1) Please don't create duplicate copies of a page. Doing so makes it difficult to keep track of what happens to the page, and causes problems for other editors who may wish to edit the page, but are unaware that there are multiple copies.
 * 2) Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and it can be very difficult to maintain such a neutral approach on a subject to which you are closely connected.
 * 3) The pages you have written appear to be promotional in character. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion.
 * 4) Much of the content is copied verbatim from Gary Sullivan (engineer) without attribution, making it an infringement of Wikipedia's licensing conditions, and a copyright infringement.
 * 5) Searches have failed to produce any evidence supporting any of the claims in the pages you have written, making it apparent that they are hoaxes.

The pages will be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Steven Clark, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. When I wrote the above message, I assumed that, despite having been editing on and off over a long period, because of you very limited experience of editing Wikipedia you did not realise that the pages you created were inappropriate. However, it is inconceivable that you could read that message and still think it acceptable to re-create the page. The sort of use you are making of Wikipedia is more suitable for a social networking site, such as Facebook or Myspace. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently using Wikipedia only to post self-promotional pages. Wikipedia is not a social network site, and if you continue to treat it as one after the block expires then you may be blocked for much longer, quite possibly indefinitely. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)