Bushey001

February 2009

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 Port Vale F.C., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. CardinalDan (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to the page Port Vale F.C. constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. -- Mentifisto 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Port Vale F.C., you will be blocked from editing. CardinalDan (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything here which can't be reversed. All I saw was a plea not to delete the article...and that was it. That's why I deleted it. Give me a moment to review the previous edits and I'll let you know what's up. Stand by a moment...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Greenway bank

I deleted this article because I saw no prospect of it meeting WP:ORG, with which you should familiarise yourself. Except in exceptional circumstances, youth football teams do not meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have to concur. I just restored it, but it's simply not notable and I'll have to delete it again. I hope this doesn't keep you from contributing. It's just that the notability level for any subject needs to be set rather high. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the prod tag and some notes. prod warning is below. tedder (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By agreement with PMDrive1061 I have redeleted this page, salted it, and userfied it at User talk:Bushey001/Greenway Bank. This will enable the creator to attempt to source it up. If he considers at a future date that it meets WP:ORG then he can ask me to restore it; or alternatively take it to WP:DRV. I will delete the userfied version if sourcing is not forthcoming after a reasonable time. TerriersFan (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greenway bank

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Greenway bank, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability is seriously questioned. (See talk page)

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. tedder (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zwolf

A tag has been placed on Zwolf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Canthusus (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Save the Netbooks, you will be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

Bushey001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not feel i should be banned because on my final warning i stopped silly, also i should have a bit of privacy and sarekofvulcan should not keep monitoring me and aggrivating me, thanks.

Decline reason:

Per SarekOfVulcan below.  Sandstein  22:29, 25 February 2009 (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.

Comment on unblock request - final warning was at 17:30 UTC -- he vandalized my userpage at 17:34 UTC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you vandalise this page again then I will block the page for the duration of your existing block. TerriersFan (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks terriors fan but?

Sorry i didn't understand what you meant, could you please explain it simpler please, thanks bud.

See here. You have not been unblocked and this will not help. TerriersFan (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OK; in view of this I have blocked your ability to edit this page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Terriersfan

Hi terriers fan why did you call me fatty and then block me for it, i was quite offended

Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

what you mean

what you mean sarekofvulcan he blatently called it me and theres no denying and when did i vandalise your userpage and if i did please send me evidence

Who does what

Wikipedia records everything about who makes which edits.

We know exactly who does what to which pages, and when.

Your accusations are false. Are you willing to apologize? DS (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism on Talk:Manchester United F.C. and User talk:Manchester united rules immediately after block release. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|I did nothing wrong i just shared my opinion on man united, why are you being a bully}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

Bushey001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong i just shared my opinion on man united, why are you being a bully

Decline reason:

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. We're an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum, and your opinions are not appropriate nor conducive towards work on improving these articles. You seem to have been blocked for this before; the fact that you continued to do this after the block is not encouraging. Please read our talk page guidelines for more information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:28, 1 March 2009 (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.

May 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Cameron. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TFOWR^propaganda 21:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zwolf listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zwolf. Since you had some involvement with the Zwolf redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)