User talk:Jan777

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jan777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lidaz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING[edit]

Do NOT remove discussion tags such as merge discussions until the discussion is complete. THAT is vandalism -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have copied this to other pages it is obvious that you have read and ignored it. DO NOT REMOVE DISCUSSION TAGS UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS COMPLETED. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=FINAL WARNING[edit]

You MUST stop removing the merge discussion tags and the UNDUE discussion tags until the discussions have run their course. Make your case on the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia[edit]

re Association of international and national public organizations “Social protection” and your message to me.

See the top of every edit box on Wikipedia page that says " Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—"

Please review the edit history as each edit I made is accompanied by an edit summary explaining which of Wikipedia's terms and conditions I was following as i made each edit. -- -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should also probably read

WP:NOTWEBHOST : Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a free webhost for organizations
As an encyclopedia, we cover what third parties , have published about the subject in reliable sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, and not being merely press release regurgitations
The particular subject of the article must have specifically been the subject of third party commentary, discussion and note.
presenting and linking to sites outside of Wikipedia have very limited use.
the websites of the subject of the article have very limited use, both in what types of claims are acceptably sources from their webpages and in how much of the article content is based on their own claims rather than what third parties have written about them.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 30 August 2015 (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).

Jan777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2015 (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.