Dopey180

Thank you for being such a valued member of the Wikipedia community. Your contributions are well accepted, accurate and hold true for all of Wikipedia's values. Any page that you have input into should be stoked that you have helped their page. You're quite simply one of the best Wikipedia editors around! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopey180 (talk • contribs) 12:17, March 12, 2008

World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article World Trade Centre (Melbourne), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of World Trade Centre (Melbourne). —BradV 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

Why did you delete the proposed deletion temple on World Trade Centre (Melbourne)? It is completely unsourced, and it fails the notability guidelines for buildings. —BradV 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

I have nominated World Trade Centre (Melbourne), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Trade Centre (Melbourne). 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. —BradV 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

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 User talk:Bradv, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. BananaFiend (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to On the Ning Nang Nong, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You changed the poem "on the ning nang nong" - but on looking at other on-line sources it seems the changes you made were in error. What source did you use to verify you were correct? BananaFiend (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User_talk:Bradv. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BananaFiend (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with World Trade Centre (Melbourne), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —BradV 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for gross incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Dweller (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

As you'll see above, I have blocked you for 24 hours. I am afraid that we will not tolerate the kind of gross incivility you've been dishing out in your last few edits. I'm also perturbed by some of your other edits that look disruptive to me, like removing tags and disrupting other articles. However, your contrib history also shows that you are also capable of constructive contributions. I will reduce the length of this block if you give me your word that you will read WP:CIVIL and abide by it. --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to January 31, you will be blocked from editing. --Bobak (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked.

--Bobak (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)