User talk:Bednar365

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Rectal bleedage, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't monkey about with joke edits. We try hard here to produce something we can all be proud of, and silliness doesn't help. Articles are monitored, and users messing around could be blocked. Why not try to contribute something useful instead? Have a look at the below and get stuck in properly:

Thanks – and enjoy yourself as a responsible Wikipedian!

- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nipple mouse, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/N/nipple-mouse.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Remorse has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Nick C (t·c) 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Coca-Cola. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Nipple mouse, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipple mouse. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  – iridescent 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you manage to plagiarize AND introduce grammatical mistakes into the stuff you could have simply pasted and copied? I'm baffled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Happiness, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Happiness was changed by Bednar365 (u) (t) deleting 33838 characters on 2008-10-28T06:44:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Mental confusion constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 12:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Lynx (deodorant). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Shell ^babelfish 12:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Hope Allsuch, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. JaGa^talk 19:03, 29 October 2008 (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).

Bednar365 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

“that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead.” I have been blocked numerous time since october. How can this be when one block runs out another one is introduced. I hardly think it's fair to be repeatedly blocked for "vandalism" when i haven't been able to "vandalise" when i have been blocked. I think it's unfair for you to continuously block me with the same reason when i haven't edited/altered anything since october. Please RSVP, ASAP

Decline reason:

Vandalism-only account. And, unless you're using multiple accounts, you have only been blocked once. —Travis^talk 12:47, 26 January 2009 (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.

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).

Bednar365 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not creating more than one account, why would i. I would not lie the original block was originaly for a day, then another block for somewhat longer, then suddenly, after being blocked by "Friday" it has become indefinate. How do i become unblocked

Decline reason:

Actually, user accounts are usually blocked indefinitely the first time, so you were very lucky in this case. As far as being unblocked, you need to give some indication that you will not continue the behavior that got you blocked. The guide to appealing blocks may also be useful to you. — J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:48, 30 January 2009 (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.

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).

Bednar365 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I admit that i have vandalised certain pages on this 'privately owned' website and for that reason i apologise and can guarantee that i will not be making the same edits, or any other edits in the form of vandalism, you have my word on that. If i do well of course you can ban me indefinately and delete my account. I am a man of my word and i believe that should count for something. In future, i would like to help Wikipedia to expand and correct its information, using such items as SuggestBot. As for the length of block, which i find interesting, is there anyway of clarifying how and when i was blocked, i am sure it was more than once and not indefinately, that is purely out of interest. You have my word that i will not vandalise again

Decline reason:

You made a total of fifteen edits, all of which were vandalism. You have made no constructive edits at all, and were blocked on 29th October on an indefinite basis. There is no evidence of any other block, and no convincing reason to release this one. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:11, 24 February 2009 (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.

.