MyNamesLogan

Welcome, MyNamesLogan!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.

- Zapptastic at 20:29, Sunday, November 17, 2024 (UTC)

Please do not create attack pages, such as Ryan Graham. They are speedily deleted on sight, and do not contribute anything to Wikipedia. Please contribute constructively or not at all. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Konstable 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It has become apparent that your account is only being used for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely.

RexNL 18:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was sentenced to 10 days of being unable to start or edit pages dues to vandalism. Im not disputing whether or not i should have been blocked only it was set to end on October 14, 2006. I checked the IP block list and it said i was on permanent block. now i dont see your authority to set a date and then change your mind at the last minute. I then requested to be unblocked and it said i'd be unblocked tomorrow at 10:37 PM then today i went to edit a page and it said i was blocked indefinetly. Whats up with that?

Also my user page was vandalized and nothing changed about it. i was left a sarcastic comment that i found inappropriate and in the wrong area as it was not in my User talk page. so i feel very, very segregated.

And just now at 3:19 PM, i was looking at the Bic Pens and in the trivia it said they can be used to slay dragons. but when i say math isn't a cookie you waste no time deleting that and blocking me.

Along the lines of the last paragraph, on the Yo Momma page it says where and when the seasons will be taking place then it says wileepeflkfnwerfnefnwlndkpoopy kaka. again you waste no time deleting me.

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. (aeropagitica) 22:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell cant i. its my talk page. i should be able to do what i want on it. Maybe i dont want people to know i was blocked or warned. it's kind of a private thing, im embarassed about it.

I agree people should be allowed to remove crap posts from their talk pages after a period of time if they want. --172.130.190.164 02:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally some humanity.

Re: About my talk page warning things

I have warnings on my talk page and i dont want them there. So i tried to get rid of them and you put them back saying im not allowed to. Why not? MyNamesLogan

OK, I will address these comments of yours first. The Talk page of your account doesn't belong to you, it belongs to Wikipedia and your contributions to that page are licenced under the GFDL, just like edits to articles. See WP:USERPAGE for details. This means that there is an audit trail in the page history telling everyone who contributed what and when. This audit trail is a versioning process, showing differences between the page after each edit. The upshot is that all of the warnings that you have received will exist as long as the page exists on the Wikipedia servers. They are even available to administrators after the page has been deleted. This is why it is pointless to remove warnings if you are embarrassed or ashamed of them - anyone who wants to can review your contributions and page histories. You can draw a line under your non-encyclopedic contributions and archive the page off. That way, you acknowledge that the community has told you when you have stepped out-of-line and have now resolved to contribute effectively. Editors will be able to see a clear change of character on your part if at some point in the future you decide to run for admin or other position of responsibility. All of your past actions will be weighed in the balance if you come to that position.

Secondly, these comments can be addressed in-turn:

1. You haven't been singled out at all. Many hundreds of editors receive warnings on an hourly basis if they make what amounts to vandalistic or bad-faith edits. Your edits were identified as non-encyclopedic and you were told as such.
2. Vandalism of userpages is treated in the same way as all other vandalism. It can be reverted and the vandal warned. Vandalism happens because of the open nature of Wikipedia. Everyone is invited to contribute but that includes people who don't contribute meaningfully. There is no pre-approval process for edits. The peer review is continuous. Vandalism is usually found quickly and stopped.
3. Your comments about administrators can be seen as an attack. I would discourage you from making these comments in a medium where they are available for instant recall.
4. Your idea of fun is fine but some people disagree about how you expressed it around here. We have guidelines and policies regarding contributions and good conduct. As someone who hasn't yet achieved adulthood, I expect that you experience minor clashes with authority from time to time - parents, school, etc. That is because they have their own rules and guidelines about behaviour, which you only find out about when you transgress. It is the same here.
5. Your use of the word probably indicates an assumption that is not backed-up by evidence. Nor would I expect it to be as it would imply wilful neglect of duties on the part of admins and editors alike.
6. If you feel that you are being bullied and have prima facie evidence of such attacks then please take this to the personal attack intervention noticeboard for review and action. You can present this in the form of diffs, which are available from the history of each page. Examples are the diffs of your pages above.
7. Lastly, please do not use your Userpage to make a point. This is one case where it would be better to blank the page or replace it with information about yourself and your interests on Wikipedia, as this can assist other editors in helping you.

Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you say dont use it to make a point. and again i say its my page. and my hobbies include making points and sarcasm so by making sarcastic points im killing two birds with one stone.

Barry Bonds

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Barry Bonds. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Your recent contribution to Chris Hansen is vandalism. Further contributions in this manner will result in loss of editing privileges. You have been warned.

Dav2008 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Ghost Ride It for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ghost Ride It is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Ride It until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)