User talk:Cls14

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).

Cls14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

James is my flatmate, I haven't do anything to deserve a blocking. I may have given up this account after 13.5 years but I don't want it to appear I've broken any rules! Cls14 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appeal does not address the obvious behavioural similarities between the accounts. MER-C 09:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Well, having retired due to being bullied and then blocked for things that someone I live with did I guess this is a rather poor end to my 13.5 year as an honest editor of Wikipedia. Well done, you've won. Enjoy your power. I just wish I could go and delete every single article I carefully researched and every single edit I did. Proud of yourselves eh? :-( Cls14 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined unblock requests can not be removed. Due to ongoing abuse from your sock puppets, I am also revoking your talk page access and email access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

May I just say

I just noticed this user has been blocked. May I just say that I think an indefinite block is pretty severe and extreme for one breach of the rules. I have followed this user's work for some time as we often work on similar areas and the vast majority of it has been productive and well researched. Does the fact that this editor has been editing trouble free and productively since 2006 count for nothing here? Surely this should be taken into account?

Given this, If (s)he has broken the rules inadvertently or otherwise then perhaps they should be given a chance to apologise for it and given another chance. Extreme sanctions like indefinite blocking for users like this do not in my view help the project and will simply drive away valuable editors. G-13114 (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:NinjaRobotPirate perhaps you would like to comment? G-13114 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. This is CheckUser block, so Cls14 can appeal to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would he not need access to his email and talk page to do that? G-13114 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is preventing him using his email provider, and he doesn't need talk page access to email Arbcom. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Visual geography

Notice

The article Visual geography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since 2006.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Football / Soccer Update > October 2020

WP:WOSO News: October 2020

Chelsea striker Bethany England scoring the winning goal in the team's 2-1 win against Arsenal at the 2019–20 FA Women's League Cup, February 29, 2020.
Chelsea striker Bethany England scoring the winning goal in the team's 2-1 win against Arsenal at the 2019–20 FA Women's League Cup, February 29, 2020.

Hello WOSO editors!

What a year to be alive. As usual (but perhaps even moreso since there have been unexpected quarantines), there has been a lot of activity on player, team, league and tournament-related Wikipedia articles with all of the worldwide coverage of women's football / soccer. Great work!

Fall Focus: FA WSL articles

You may have noticed lots of great things going on for the top English league this year: the FA WSL. More (international!) broadcasts, top international player signings, improved media coverage, and increased viewership. Let's keep the momentum brewing, shall we?

Here's a sampling of articles that could use creation, expansion or updating. What will you commit to working on?

Historical Topics
Managers
Teams
Players
Other

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/FA WSL to collaborate and organize with other editors.

Every little bit helps! Thanks for your contributions!

Did you know...

WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY (which only includes the players in two currently active women's leagues)? Often times there is enough media coverage that meets WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. For more information, see WP:WOSO#Notability and be sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}

Current and upcoming seasons for top-division leagues


Have some new articles in mind or see some that need improvement? Add them to the Open Tasks.

Was an article you worked on nominated for deletion? See:

Want some tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors?
Leave a message on the task force talk page.

Thank you for your continued contributions to articles related to women's football / soccer (WOSO)!

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force
#wikiwomeninred

Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Weston and Waverley Wood

Notice

The article Weston and Waverley Wood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability. This isn't listed by any authoritative body and the only source is to a local page authored by the public. Just appears to be another wood. If there is any significance , it could easily be bundled into a nearby village article. Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Parade, Leamington Spa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parade, Leamington Spa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parade, Leamington Spa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DragonofBatley (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hanna (character) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hanna (character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna (character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Spinixster (trout me!) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saoirse Ronan and Esme Creed-Miles as Hanna.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saoirse Ronan and Esme Creed-Miles as Hanna.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Anglesey Central Railway

Anglesey Central Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]