StopVandalsNow

Hi everybody, I think thats its time a lot of people cleaned up their act here, so lets get together and stop those vandals! StopVandalsNow 19:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FMX (foot motocross)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article FMX (foot motocross), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Karenjc 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message re proposed deletion of FMX (foot motocross)

As the nomination said, I suspected this was a hoax, because I could find absolutely no references to it at all by Googling - not a one! If it's a genuine sport - and I'm quite happy to accept that it is - then the article needs references to prove it, and if it's as obscure as you suggest then notability needs to be asserted too. If you're really unhappy with the proposed deletion template then you're welcome to remove it, but please supply refs otherwise it'll end up at WP:AfD for discussion. If you need any help with the process, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to do what I can. Best wishes, Karenjc 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, those are all good suggestions. Images would be a big plus. Free running, Soap shoes etc could could go into a "See also" section at the bottom of the page. WP:N goes into some detail about what kind of references are needed to assert notability; in general it says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". There are guidelines on the page about what constitutes "significant coverage" and "reliable sources". But I have to say I've googled again and still haven't found any mention of this at all. Is it a local / national / international thing? Karenjc 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicken

You left an unsigned note saying that the above page should not be protected. The article in questions was receiving a considerable amount of vandalism from unregistered IPs when I protected it, creating lots of work. The protection is only from new and IP users and expires in a week from today, so it is not protected for long. If you wish me to reconsider let me know along with your reasons for doing so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo

Hi, I noticed that your edit Kangaroo article was removed because it was unreferenced. One could restore it with references and/or link to Kangaroo meat article. Well, I added it back myself. Thanks. Docku^Hi 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Pavlova (food). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--118.93.72.60 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reference used in the paragraph is extremely weak and misleading. YOU should not attempt to present myths as fact. StopVandalsNow 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Pavlova (food). If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --118.93.78.151 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC) It is actually a constructive edit, can an admin look at this please? StopVandalsNow 09:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pavlova (food)

If you want to edit against consensus, please use the talk page to discuss changes. It might be handy to point out that an editor you've been dealing with is infact an admin, and is making some good points. If you feel strongly about this, it might be a good idea to take some time out and review all the information. Thanks, Matty - (Talk) 13:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to David Arora. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--fvw* 08:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|how is this a vandalism only account? See my edits, I have been constructive here for months.This "admin" User:fvw has abused his privaleges and needs to be stopped. Please also note this "admin" User:fvw is himself a vandal, he blanked my userpage! User:fvw IS A VANDAL!}}

THanks Travis I appreciate it :) StopVandalsNow 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars, and stop accusing people of vandalism who have legitimate concerns. Your userpage is questionable, at least. I suggest you revise it to include content more appropriate to an editor who is improving an encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 16:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The user i warned may be a regular,but that doesn't grant him permission to vandalize userpages. He was warned for a legitimate reason and i stand by it. StopVandalsNow 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was extremely inappropriate, your userpage was blanked because you were indef blocked - standard practice. I suggest you remove it now, behaviour like this is not tolerated--Jac16888 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism. You use the term much too freely. Jac16888 is correct: we blank userpages of indefblocked users. Using an Internet vandalism meme is not appropriate, especially given your avowed purpose here. I won't take it to MfD, but I strongly suggest you retract your warning to Fvw. Acroterion _(talk) 16:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it definitely was not vandalism to blank your userpage. I unblocked you, but be advised that the templating of regulars and administrators with accusations of vandalism may earn you another one. —Travis^talk 16:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry

Hi, on a more careful review of your contributions, you are indeed clearly not a vandal, my apologies for the block. --fvw* 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC) No problem mate cheers StopVandalsNow 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FMX (foot motocross)

I have nominated FMX (foot motocross), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FMX (foot motocross). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mintrick (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Kifflom

Last year you remarked about the lack of mention of "Kifflom" in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. You may wish to comment on a related nomination at RfD. -- ToE^T 04:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)