Eagleburas
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Zach James
edit
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Zach James requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The article Rich Raddon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rd232 talk 13:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Eagleburas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not sure why I was blocked. Can I get unblocked please?
Decline reason:
You are blocked for sockpuppetry, and you will need to explain your editing on the same article with both an IP and this account before unblock can be considered.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:48, 17 April 2013 (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.
- You were blocked because of your edits to Collapse of the World Trade Center. After a string of IPs come in and add poorly sourced conspiracy theory information to the article, it is semi-protected. Then you show upand your first edits in a couple of years are to undo the edits without comment, twice. There is only one conclusion and that is you were the IP that was adding the information to begin with. GB fan 12:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you will need to provide some reliable sources. We prefer peer-reviewed articles from experts, not poorly sourced conspiracy theories. Eagleburas (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Eagleburas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was clearly a controlled demolition. Your conspiracy theory that I was engaging in sockpuppetry is untrue and poorly sourced. I demand you unblock my account now. Eagleburas (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You suddenly show up 10 minutes after semiprotection was imposed to make the same edit as the IP, when you had been away from the article for months. What a coincidence! Either you are the IP, or you are the victim of astoundingly bad luck. If you are indeed the IP, then you get extra credit for using an open proxy. Given the background, an indefinite block is a reasonable response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2013 (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.