Articles for deletion nominations

edit

When you submit an article for deletion, please make sure to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. If you don't include the line that looks like this:

{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

your AfD will be misformatted. I have gone back and fixed your two submissions for you already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks very much for the links. I was literally just about to start a discussion on your talk page to ask you about that. I'd signed up from my IP so I could nominate these pages, and thought I knew how to nominate a page for deletion, but apparently I did not. Thanks for fixing it for me. Anyway, neither of these pages has been edited since 2009, or has any references, and there is no proof that either exists. The Tortfeasor (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Free the Tortfeasor!

edit
 
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).

The Tortfeasor (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Not a "duck," whatever that means. My edits have been superb. What is the meaning of this intrusion? If this is because I commented on the attacks against me on Dr. Eppstein's page, I was pinged. Was I supposed to sit there silently while this user attacked me? Please show me which of my edits deserved a block. I would say I deserve a Best-new-editor award, not a block. Free the Tortfeasor!

Decline reason:


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.

"This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." You have not met this heavy burden, as you have not shown "clear and convincing evidence" of anything. Clear and convincing evidence is a high evidentiary standard. Take it from an old Tortfeasor. The Tortfeasor (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
 
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).

The Tortfeasor (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

What "crusade"? I only made good edits. Isn't that what this place is about? Seems that the above admins aren't adhering to policy.

Decline reason:


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.