User talk:SomeoneLitAnyone

It looks like you were editing when you meant to edit James H. Chadbourn. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:US-academic-bio-stub. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not add article content to templates, as Disavian said above. That kind of content must be added to articles. And that content must be added to James H. Chadbourn. I hope you got this message. -Porchcrop (talk 09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I forgot to mention that that content is inappropriate on article about people on Wikipedia. If you want to put content about people, see WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Thanks. -Porchcrop (talk 09:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree these edits were vandalism, but it's true they don't belong on the template. If you need assistance in putting the information into the correct article, please feel free to let me know. Frank &#124;  talk  12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of James H. Chadbourn for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James H. Chadbourn 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/James H. Chadbourn 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * SomeoneLitAnyone: please read the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies before making major edits to this article. Your edits, such as this one, are clear violations of these policies and have been reverted. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at James H. Chadbourn, you may be blocked from editing. Nsk92 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at James H. Chadbourn, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)