User talk:EndrisPuka

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Ryan Reynolds, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Doc talk 11:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Albanian Mobile Communications. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Doc talk 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vodafone Albania, you may be blocked from editing. Things like "Our commercial outlets are at the customers’ service seven days a week" are not acceptable here, and are probably WP:COPYVIOs to begin with. Doc talk 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising as you did to Scarlett Johansson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Scarlett Johansson Hollywood Walk of Fame 2012.jpg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Scarlett Johansson Hollywood Walk of Fame 2012.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nymf _hideliho! 14:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and external links

Hello, Endris Puka. I have been looking at your editing history because of a report on you at Administrator intervention against vandalism. It does not seem to me that there is any basis for calling your editing "vandalism", but I have, unfortunately, found other problems with your editing. The most serious problem that I have seen is that you have persistently added content to Wikipedia articles that infringes copyright. It is almost always unacceptable to copy content from other web sites, as, unless you can provide proof that you have permission from the copyright holder, it is illegal to do so. Such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Also, even if there is copyright permission, content from other web sites is rarely acceptable for other reasons. For example, if you copy information about a person from their own web site, their own facebook page, or somewhere of the sort, it is very likely to be written in a way which is too promotional for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and anything which appears to be written to promote a subject is unacceptable. Furthermore, of the extensive sample of your editing that I have examined, most of the edits which did not appear to infringe copyright added inappropriate external links, such as links to facebook. I suggest you read the guideline on external links before adding any more links. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scarlett Johansson. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has never talked to anyone about anything. They just keep on inserting the same things when their blocks expire. Since they are a named account, and have no redeeming edits, the very second they start spamming again (once this block expires) should be met with an indefinite block. If they don't want to talk about their edits, they can perhaps learn to start talking starting with an unblock request. Enough is enough. Doc talk 08:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user just did it again. Anyone around to block? Nymf _hideliho! 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kinu ^t/_c 05:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming, edit-warring with 14(!) separate attempts to include a spam link, blatant copyvios, incompetence, zero interest in communication with fellow editors = completely incompatible with this project. Good riddance. Doc talk 06:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]