Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Th'u~nks. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. (aeropagitica) 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you create an inappropriate page such as
Th'u~nks and B'heegery, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That goes for any similar article on your nonsense religion.
NawlinWiki
16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You had two warnings above. But nonetheless despite them you have since repeatedly created non-articles such as Pukka Pies with zero content, and added slang all over the place. This is simple timewasting disruption, and editing that Wikipedia can do without. I've rescinded your editing privileges. If you wish to instead make positive contributions to Wikipedia, you will be welcome here. But timewasting edits that make no contribution to the encyclopedia result in loss of editing privileges. Continue down that path, and such loss will eventually become permanent. Uncle G 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the only place I'm allowed to write any more. What is wrong with my skanking article, it is a genuine prank, even if not always known as skanking.
I don't have access to the original article, but I can tell you why this current version doesn't stand a particularly high chance of being kept:
- At least 50% of what's written is nonsense.
- Most of the sources say totally different things to those the article says they say. This is a problem when the article claims various elements of notability and the sources don't back them up. As a very minor example, the painting that hangs at the company headquarters is given an entirely different artist and title in the article and the source.
- There's no evidence (other than the say-so of one site) that the pies are as popular as you say they are. Statistics and sales numbers would be more than useful here.
- The only thing which appears accurate is the sponsorship of the band, which doesn't necessarily confer notability upon the sponsor by any means.
I'll keep your Talk page on my watchlist until the article is deleted if you want to discuss this further, as I understand you can't edit anywhere else at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Boczek listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boczek. Since you had some involvement with the Boczek redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Th'u~nks. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. (aeropagitica) 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you create an inappropriate page such as
Th'u~nks and B'heegery, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That goes for any similar article on your nonsense religion.
NawlinWiki
16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You had two warnings above. But nonetheless despite them you have since repeatedly created non-articles such as Pukka Pies with zero content, and added slang all over the place. This is simple timewasting disruption, and editing that Wikipedia can do without. I've rescinded your editing privileges. If you wish to instead make positive contributions to Wikipedia, you will be welcome here. But timewasting edits that make no contribution to the encyclopedia result in loss of editing privileges. Continue down that path, and such loss will eventually become permanent. Uncle G 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the only place I'm allowed to write any more. What is wrong with my skanking article, it is a genuine prank, even if not always known as skanking.
I don't have access to the original article, but I can tell you why this current version doesn't stand a particularly high chance of being kept:
- At least 50% of what's written is nonsense.
- Most of the sources say totally different things to those the article says they say. This is a problem when the article claims various elements of notability and the sources don't back them up. As a very minor example, the painting that hangs at the company headquarters is given an entirely different artist and title in the article and the source.
- There's no evidence (other than the say-so of one site) that the pies are as popular as you say they are. Statistics and sales numbers would be more than useful here.
- The only thing which appears accurate is the sponsorship of the band, which doesn't necessarily confer notability upon the sponsor by any means.
I'll keep your Talk page on my watchlist until the article is deleted if you want to discuss this further, as I understand you can't edit anywhere else at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Boczek listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boczek. Since you had some involvement with the Boczek redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)