Asian Parents, Western Upbringing
Speedy deletion of Adam Swellings
edit
A tag has been placed on Adam Swellings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Gary Newlove
edit Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Gary Newlove, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
February 2008
edit Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mikhail Bakunin, you will be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Stephen Sorton
edit Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Stephen Sorton, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Gary Newlove, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Gary Newlove
edit A tag has been placed on Gary Newlove, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 08:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I intend to oppose its deletion. Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Image
editImages are fine on userpages - small images that don't eat bandwidth. Talk pages are for discussion, not huge images. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- To expand: I resized the image on your userpage a while back: nothing wrong with the image, it's just huge. Use the image formatting, keep it down below, say 500px, and you're great. Our Founder will thank you, no doubt. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Gary Newlove
edit An editor has nominated Gary Newlove, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Newlove and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Bot
editIt looks like the bot has done the notifying for you. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: AfD notification for Gary Newlove
editThank you for your courtesy in letting me know about this. - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Walrus
edit
For more walruses, please see my subpage, User:Asian Parents, Western Upbringing/Walruses.
March 2008
edit This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:Lowey100, you will be blocked from editing. Only an admin can review and deny an unblock request. You are not an admin.
Mayalld (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment that you didn't know that only admins could review blocks is noted. However, please take a good look at the unblock template. The instructions in the template clearly state "for administrator use only". Please take very great care in future, and don't do anything unless you are certain that you are allowed to do so. Mayalld (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked by jpgordon to do with some massive sockpuppetry case. I can assure you that I have nothing to do with this at all, as I often operate off shared IPs.
Decline reason:
The unblock reason is not credible and your contribution history shows a strong likelihood that you have engaged in creative disruption. — Jehochman Talk 13:10, 10 March 2008 (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.
Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok, I am trying my hardest to adhere to WP:CIVIL, but please appreciate that it is not easy for me having read the unblock decline reason above. Basically it has been said that my unblock reason previously given was not credible. If I've been blocked as a sockpuppet of an abusive user when this is not the case, then how can such a block be possibly justified on those grounds. It is then claimed that I am "probably disruptive" based on a few previous edits. I invite whoever is reviewing this request to see my contributions and judge for themselves. I cannot deny that a few contributions were initially unhelpful, and for that I received a 48 hour block. Upon return I have set about "learning the ropes" and was on the verge of adjusting to this site. I am not a disruptive user, and am certainly not a sockpuppet. Like I previously mentioned, I use a shared IP most of the time. The main reason I actually use this account is because most of the time the IP address I am constricted to use is blocked for vandalism - I assume the same guy I am considered a sockpuppet of. I would like another impartial admin to review this request please. Thanks
Decline reason:
I've looked through your entire contribution history, and could find little but disruption, trolling, and attacks (even when then self-reverted). Even if you are not a sock, this account is nonetheless used only for disruption. — Coren (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (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.
If this is the way you feel then fine. I just think it's sad that you cannot accept you are wrong sometimes. Even if you think the account does deserve a block, you cannot argue that it has been for the wrong reasons. If you thought this account was disruptive then why wasn't it banned earlier. The fact is I was still learning the ropes round here and was trying to edit constructively after a shaky start. However, it seems like some people round here are a law unto themselves. I shan't be requesting to be unblocked again, because quite frankly, I don't want to contribute to a site that treats people in this manner. If anyone I know decides they wish to edit constructively here, I shall do my best to prevent them from wasting their time here.