User talk:06readc

March 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Lowestoft. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please, please read up on WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR]. Making 26 *consecutive* edits on a single article that possibly violate those policies is unacceptable →Dyl @n 620 14:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Hi there,

it's good to see you putting so much work into editing the Lowestoft article. However, please make sure you follow Wikipedia's guidelines, some links below might be helpful:

In particular, please re-read your edits to make sure they make sense, and only include relevant encyclopedia-style information on the page, which can be backed up by other sources - Wikipedia is not a forum for original research or opinion. Be aware that readers of the article may come from anywhere - the audience is not just local people. Finally, wherever possible cite your references giving inline citations, and use the information provided by these reliable resources to build up the article content. Once again, thanks for your enthusiasm for Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy making worthwhile contributions to many articles. a_boardley (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowestoft

Further vandlism to the Lowestoft article will see you blocked from Wikipedia. If you wish to make an edit you are not sure about, please use the Talk:Lowestoft page. Specifically:

Unnotable people, without references or Wikilinks, or who 'visited Lowestoft once' are not 'Notable People'. A musician, TV presenter etc. is.
The Port of Lowestoft is described on the ABP website as 'The Port Of Lowestoft' so this is what the link is called, not 'Lowestoft Port'.

If you wish to enter into disucssion about this please use the Talk:Lowestoft page, this page, or my User_talk:A_boardley page.

Please sign all your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~) to add your name an time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A boardley (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Lowestoft. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease vandalising the Lowestoft article a_boardley (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

A conversation about your edits is going on at Talk:Lowestoft#May 2009. Please respond there. Significant changes to articles should always be discussed at talk pages if they have met with resistance from other editors. Thank you. Chick Bowen 15:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Port Of Lowestoft was created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Lowestoft External Links

As I've explained at the article talk page, I've removed most of the external links under WP:ELNO, points 1, 5 and 14 specifically. I think there may be scope to include some of this information in the article, but I wouldn't go too far down the line of looking like a list of companies that could be considered to benefit financially from having their names on wikipedia but don't meet the criteria for an article in themselves. Can I also suggest that you might want to look at WP:REFB at some point? Well done on creating this article by the way - clearly notable enough for an article. But do look at similar articles to consider some structure and referencing!! -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lowestoft port enterance.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Lowestoft port enterance.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism / Port of Lowestoft Edits

Hi,

thank you for BEING BOLD in your Wikipedia edits, but please enter discussion with editors who contest them; there are guidelines about how to develop an article - ignoring both these and attempts at discussion will be seen as vandalism as you have previously been warned. Please use this or other users talk pages to enter discussions, or more specifically the talk pages of the articles in question. Such a discussion is currently in progress at the Port of Lowestoft article, see Talk:Port_of_Lowestoft#May_09_edits

If you need any help with how to use discussion pages, please see the help pages or feel free to contact me on my talk page: User_talk:a_boardley.

Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) to keep track of discussions. Any problems, please ask.

a_boardley (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Kirkley Community High School, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Additionally, please read WP:NPOV, as you've been asked many times. tedder (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Kirkley and Pakefield edits are VANDALISM. They are uncited, and in fact contradict the well sourced cites already in place. You have not responded to calls for discussion on talk pages. Your own talk page is serving as a testament to your repeated vandalism. You have made some worthwhile edits in the past, well sourced, including the creation of worthy articles. It would be foolish to tarnish your Wikipedia reputation or get blocked for making unhelpful, wild, accusatory, opinionated, unfactual or vandalous edits. Please cease or you will be blocked from Wikipedia. To discuss the issue or the particular issues related to any of the pages you edit, please respond here or on the particular article talk pages. Thank you. a_boardley (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits of 11:08, June 5, 2009 to Lowestoft were undeniable vandalism. This is you FINAL WARNING. If you are blocked from Wikipedia, you must understand that it is due to vandalism and due to not entering into dialogue. If you wish to discuss an edits please use talk pages. Points of view, opinion, and the replacement of referenced facts with opinionated claims will likely be removed from article pages - any ignorant deletion of facts to make way for such edits, especially after warnings, is vandalism. STOP NOW a_boardley (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Lil' Chris, you will be blocked from editing.

See WP:BLP. Please heed this warning. Further vandalism will lead to a block Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]