MadHaTTer666
June 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hacker (computer security), 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 read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 00:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hacker (computer security). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
- If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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: Hacker (computer security) was changed by MadHaTTer666 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.889468 on 2011-06-04T00:52:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Hacker (computer security). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Hacker (computer security). It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SudoGhost™ 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Hacker (computer security), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Marek.69 talk 01:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
MadHaTTer666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
because you have crappy ppl blocking me i try to post educational opensource information on a subject that i know a great deal about and am being continually called a spammer i try to explain what i am posting on their talk pages and they tell me wikipedia doesnt give that kind of information. i currently hold my A+, NETWORK+, Security+, MCTS, MCSA, MCITP, and CCNP and your dumbass 14 yo brats keep blocking me because they dont think that kind of information shouldnt be allowed because they dont understand it and they watch cnn im trying to shed some light on the true definition of a hacker/security professional as i have been doing it for 20yrs i think by now i know a thing or 2 and find your definition very insuilting and incorrect of what a hacker is - sorry but i cant say it any more polite at the moment the kiddies been pissing me off haha just realized i think i even saw a referance to CNN on that pageMadHaTTer666 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
- It's clear that you don't understand that that you may not use Wikipedia for spamming or promotion of any kind, open-source or not. Please read WP:SPAM again, if necessary. You have my age wrong by forty years, by the way. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Cisco and Comptia links are merely pointless links to general sites. The other three links you keep posting are the real problem, apart from the fact that your additions are unencyclopedic fragments stuck into the middle of the article. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
MadHaTTer666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
hahaha i do understand the spamming policy completly but am i not able to add any external links that are relavent to the article described as i see so many other contributers do with crappy books they found at the library? as for the age i was talking about your mentality so your a 50yo kid huh. bud i have better thing to do then spam and as for promotion i really dont think cisco or any of the others mentioned there need my help on some little wikipedia article ;)
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. —DoRD (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
P.S. It might also help your case if you would write in clear English rather than txt or 1337 or whatever dialect your edits up to this point have been written in. —DoRD (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
MadHaTTer666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
first off yes its l33t, its a habit and not a easy one to break. i usually go back and correct things given formally within a few minuites(painfully)
1.understand what you have been blocked for - i was blocked for trying to contruibute to a subject i know alot about and is often misrepresented (as here) as something hainous. 2.will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and - if trying to post is disruptive then why make it a option? as explained thats all i was trying to do. 3.will make useful contributions instead. - thats what i was trying to do in the first place but some people dont know what is useful in a subject they have little intrest in (ie i dont think a muffler is useful) hopefully this gets resolved soon i do have other things to do today and i dont really feel like spoofing my ip and creating another account (which is what id probally normally do to hurry up this crap)☺ MadHaTTer666 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly do not understand that you are blocked for posting promotional links. Sandstein 05:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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.