User talk:Catlover324

Welcome!

Hello, Catlover324, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Why to keep your cat inside, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Bihco (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Why to keep your cat inside

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Why to keep your cat inside, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bihco (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User:Bihco has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Nsaa (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my change is not unconstructive.

This kind of content would never belong in an article by itself. We already have Cat health, which covers the same topic and a lot more. Moreover, claims like "...to protect your cat from cat haters" are not reasonably possible to ever verify with reliable medical sources (because that's what we'd need) and therefore couldn't fit in any article. So if you remove that, it's basically just a sentence or two on cat health and maybe cat behavior. —Soap— 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catlover324, you need to understand a few things about how Wikipedia works, which is stuff you should have had a basic grasp of from taking a quick scan at the links in the welcome banner on top of the page:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought – we strive to provide information that is verifiable and by reliable secondary independent sources.
Wikipedia is not your own web host – Please set up your own blog or use another website if you wish to express your personal opinions on stuff; Wikipedia is not the place for that.
The pages you edit and create are not your articles – once you hit that "Save page" button, they become the community's articles, and they may be edited in any way, shape, or form within common sense and basic guidelines.

If you are not able to understand these basic premises about Wikipedia, then you will not be able to edit here constructively. Regards, –MuZemike 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why was the change i made to Bihco's userpage undone?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Mary Bale. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted your second edit to the Mary_Bale page. The original page correctly redirects to a section of an article that describes her notability and the event she was involved in. If you believe that this should change then please use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes with other editors before making them. Thanks and happy editing! CaptRik (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cat health. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bihco (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Domestic rabbit, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot NG.

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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Domestic rabbit was changed by Catlover324 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.972262 on 2010-11-03T20:24:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Domestic rabbit constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.. Diff. This edit does not meet the quality standards for the encyclopedia. Maybe if you rephrased it and wrote it well, and cited your source properly, the content could be judged for inclusion; but if you continue to add your content in this way, you may be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. Nimur (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Domestic rabbit. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Domestic rabbit. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where to i appeal my block

please hep me get unblocked.i was not vandalizing. I was just adding the truth about rabbits. How is that vandalism?

Hello Catlover324. You have been blocked for disruptive editing. Your block will expire in 48 hours. We hope that you will make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia; your contributions are welcome but they must conform to our guidelines. You might want to read:

I hope you will read and consider this information, and return to make constructive edits at Wikipedia. Nimur (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2010 (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).

Catlover324 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have been bocked for no reason. i got a warning for not adding a source or my rabbit information to the article on rabbits as pets, but then i did add a source and i got another warning. so i should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Under no circumstances will I unblock somebody who thinks that this is a helpful addition to a neutral encyclopedia. If you do not read and understand WP:BLP while you are blocked, you are certain to be blocked indefinitely next time yo do something like this. Sandstein 20:59, 3 November 2010 (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.

Yesterday I got a warning about not using sources on domestic rabbit but then i went back onto that page and used a source for what i was saying. but then that change was undone and i got another warning. why is that? Catlover324 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Catlover324 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i will no longer make these types of edits

Decline reason:

Pending your answer to question posed below. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:08, 5 November 2010 (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.

as i said i will not make these changes to Wikipedia anymore. i understand it was an unhelpful edit

i understand i even warned my self with one of those tools please let me back on.

Could you give an example of an edit you would make, if you would be unblocked? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cat, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Cat was changed by Catlover324 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956105 on 2010-12-31T15:55:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Catlover324. Please do not add your personal opinion to articles. It is important that claims added are cited with reliable sources, since personal opinions are not verifiable. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

hi

The blood Is of my soul: the bleeding, of my heart (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]