User talk:Katsmeow777

February 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Dave Hensman worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dave Hensman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can my edits be vandalism when the edit itself is a legal document regarding dave hensman? If I was posting untruths then yes it would be vandalism, however since it is the truth I will keep posting!

An encyclopedia is not the place for a legal document. You can refer to the contents of the document, but posting the entire thing is completely inappropriate. Also, you blanked out and removed some information. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dave_Hensman, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who your are but for sure you are not someone of authority otherwise you would not accuse me of deleating parts of a legal document! I am posting the truth about Dave Hensman and how he was convicted. You can label me as vandalizm all you want...GOD IS WATCHING DAVE HENSMAN and all who help him be so deceitful. THE TRUTH WILL LIVE ON SO TRYING TO HIDE IT WITH THESE TYPE OF TACTICS WON'T WORK! WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

You have received advice on how you might incorporate this information. I would also advise you to read WP:COI (conflict of interest and WP:SOCK (sockpuppetry). You are welcome to edit wikipedia pages, but not in a disruptive manner or otherwise in contravention of the policies. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dave Hensman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dave Hensman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sitush (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

An edit in which you have been involved has been has been referred to the BLP noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sushi, I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision to remove the link I posted and labeled it as vandilism. I thought if an article was published you could add it to the persons page. I only added the link to the published article regarding Dave Hensman to provide validity to the prior person's post. I honestly am not trying to vandalise his page, I am trying to provide a neutral point of view which can be backed up because it has been published. I quote below one of the five pillers of Wiki:

Wiki has a Neutral Point of View:

We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

"we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view" - My article is just that it provides another point of view and should be added to his biography. Thank you for taking the time to hear me out, and I am hopeful that you will agree with me and reverse your decision to remove the link, and label of vandalism.

Rubbish. You are conducting a vendetta. See the discussion linked to if you want to pursue this matter. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Katsmeow777/Legal_Suits_and_Dave_Hensan

User:Katsmeow777/Legal_Suits_and_Dave_Hensan, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Katsmeow777/Legal_Suits_and_Dave_Hensan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Katsmeow777/Legal_Suits_and_Dave_Hensan during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Stratawatch (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]