User talk:Ruth Celeste

This web page was removed by someone who keeps spamming this site.

Well only two edits to this page. The first being ^ Mkdw 04:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ruth Celeste, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Bachrach44 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Bryks[edit]

deleted as an attack page on a living person under CSD A6. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only deleted two: Bryks and another rabbi, Matis something... both of the aricles are attack pages, deleted under WP:CSD criterion G10, and per our key policy WP:BLP dealing with negative information in biographies of living persons. I also tagged a few for eventual deletion b/c the subjects are simply not important enough per WP:BIO such as Maureen Greenwood, Mark Dratch. I see those tags have been removed. I might ask for a consensus on deletion later. I'll let you know if I end up taking any steps.

Bottom line is, you're not meeting with success because you've come to wikipedia with an axe to grind. Try editing articles that do not relate to clergy abuse. You will have a much more pleasant experience. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clergy abuse[edit]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. This is your final warning. Owen× ☎ 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Owen× ☎ 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

After reviewing contributions from this account and others, administrators have determined that these accounts exist to disrupt Wikipedia through trolling and meatpuppetry. I have indefinitely blocked this account. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maureen Greenwood[edit]

The article Maureen Greenwood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP with no independent references establishing notability via GNG or WP:ACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]