User talk:Tabrnakus
March 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: RondellSheridanism
Re your message: No, I will not restore the page as it was clearly a joke.Recreate the page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rondell Sheridan has been reverted.
Your edit here to Rondell Sheridan was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/user/jmz43) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Last warning
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jesus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Tabrnakus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I already received a warning concerning my vandalism of Jesus page.You can't punish someone twice for the same crime. If an admin decided that the punishment would be a warning, you shouldn't have blocked me after. Unless if I did something else wrong after. And I did not. Thanks
Decline reason:
Neither the warning nor the block were punishment, you're simply being prevented from editing because it became clear your account was being used for vandalism. If you wished to make legitimate edits to Wikipedia, you shouldn't have vandalised, and if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, you have to read the guide to appealing unblocks and convince us that you won't vandalise anymore. Closedmouth (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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.
Tabrnakus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block isn't necessary. I've understood what I can and cannot do. In fact, I got it at the warning, the block is unnecessary. I've made plenty of good contributions that weren't vandalism.You should not block an account permanently because of one mistake when I did lots of good contributions aswell. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This is entirely unconvincing. You've made disruptive edits at Jesus, Rondell Sheridan, and Wilford Brimley. You've also created a hoax article at RondellSheridanism. I can find only one series of unsourced edits that might be described as constructive. You'll need to provide an explanation for your disruptive actions, which you have indeed been warned about, before an unblock can be considered. Kuru (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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.