User talk:Ndg.2010

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Knights Templar. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sudo Ghost 04:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Knights Templar. 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. Sudo Ghost 04:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ndg.2010. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Knights Templar. 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. Sudo Ghost 04:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Knights Templar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sudo Ghost 04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ndg.2010. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sudo Ghost 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ndg.2010. 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. Sudo Ghost 09:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:SudoGhost. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sudo Ghost 09:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Knights Templar. 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. Sudo Ghost 09:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your addition to User talk:Ndg.2010 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; 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. Sudo Ghost 08:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your addition to User talk:Ndg.2010 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; 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. Sudo Ghost 08:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your addition to User talk:Ndg.2010 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; 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. Sudo Ghost 08:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. JohnCD (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ndg.2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Editor SudoGhost is not an Editor he is an abusive vandal and harrasser. It is just a link to a good relevant article about the subject. The only 'warring' going on is by this nut. Ndg.2010 (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. An optimist on the run! 09:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will leave your request for another administrator to consider, but in the meantime please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to understand how Wikipedia should work. JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave your request for another administrator to consider, but in the meantime please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to understand how Wikipedia should work. JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no opportunity for debate, this guy accused me of being some kind of spammer just because there are some google ads on the site where the article is posted then started leaving all kinds of crazy warnings on my talk page. Is he really some kind of administrator? I find that very hard to believe.08:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I then tried editing part of the article adding a very brief section about the accusations and he reverted that as well, which just shows it wasn't about the ads on the articles page, he has another reason for doing this to me.Ndg.2010 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did have another reason for removing it, it was a copyright violation. I explained why it was not an appropriate link, and asked multiple times for you to discuss it on the article's talk page, and there has been ample time to do this, so it's not as if there was "no opportunity". Nearly all of your edits have been for the sole purpose of inserting this link into the article, which is why I left you the uw-advert1 template. - Sudo Ghost 08:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't link the section I asked you to read: it is WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please read it, carefully, before you reply again, and also WP:NOTTHEM. JohnCD (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as seen in Knights Templar (Freemasonry), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Sudo Ghost 18:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent Accounts

"Albertpirck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Ndg.2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Mmmm54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
24.69.116.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
41.246.102.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
24.68.101.182 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]