User talk:Lando09

Proposed deletion of Jamie Buhrer

The article Jamie Buhrer has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.


If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kevin (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Bennett's picture

Regarding "rv; jumped through your hoops, no reason to be obstinate". You might want to try assuming good faith for a change. I made my points clear. The 2006 picture is perfectly suited to the section about Bennett winning the premiership that year. The 2008 picture is more recent and the focus is more clearly on the subject of the article, thus making it more suitable for the infobox. It's a shame you don't see it that way. Please don't revert and render me having typed all this out pointless.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Martin Taupau

The article Martin Taupau has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.


If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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).

Lando09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Below are just a few

Decline reason:

I agree with the conclusion of the sock investigation. Removing captions from images of rugby players is a very unusual obsession, and not one likely to be shared among a group of users for the simple fact that it makes no sense and is an unsupportable position. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2010 (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.

I wish to appeal the block on my account. I am not a sock-puppet, not is anyone else a sock-puppet of me. How do I go about challenging this. As evidence I was also accused of being Tiger10, this guy Jeff79 doesn't seem to like rugby league in London it seems. This guy says I am removing captions, but when I have edited the likes of Brett Finch, Neil Henry, hell the whole New Zealand Warriors squad I did not touch them. I have no control over other users, only my actions. I wish to challenge this as I am only one person, not linked to anyone else here, hell probably the most contact I've had is with Jeff79. I honestly do not understand this and it is making me quite angry, I wish to get this resolved.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about appealing this outcome. I can't edit because I've been blocked, I've been blocked because I have the same views as another individual. Jeff79 has complained, and now seemingly has moved onto his next target in Youndbuckerz, who I wouldn't be suprised to hear that he or she is also a Londo2006.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked with my flatmate and he only uses wikipedia as a point of reference. This leads me to conclude that my account has been hacked if there is an imposter running about out there.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this guy me. Just checked his edits through the link provided and it's almost entirely a whole page of rugby union. I've never been to a game of rugby union in my life, can't remember editing any rugby union articles that weren't directly connected to the 13 a-side game. This whole thing stinks!This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (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).

Lando09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can safely say that I have moved away from removing captions after being given a ban by an administrator. As evidenced here and with the Wayne Bennett article I have moved away from that. I am not the only user to have removed captions from rugby (league) articles, I don't even remember editing any articles from rugby yawnion. There are still users removing captions from rugby league articles there now. That is only on the rugby league community, what about every other sub-group out there. Is it the supposition that two individuals who think that infoboxes look better without captions and follow rugby league must be the same person.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I find the behavioral evidence that these multiple accounts are being used by the same person compelling. Jayron32 03:56, 26 April 2010 (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.

Here are examples of me not removing captions from just the first two NRL clubs I examined; Israel Folau, Denan Kemp, Darren Lockyer, Lagi Setu, Corey Parker (rugby league), Andrew Ryan, Dene Halatau and Brett Kimmorley. What I have been accused of doesn't necessarily tie up with the truth.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence brought forward by Jeff79 is tainted as I changed the picture, making the caption incorrect [1]. I would not have to add a caption to the new image as it is not mandatory, and as stated above I have not removed them from many, many articles, and have even edited existing captions.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Londo06 seems to spend time on rugby union, cricket and football. The similarities between us are that we both think captions are wrong, not unique to the two of us. Both follow rugby league; one following Harlequins because I live in London, the other one seems to follow St Helens and Harlequins. I don't recall paying too much attention to that club (St Helens), nor the yawnion side that play at the Stoop, nor any boring cricket articles. I have never edited under any other name, used any other computer, used someone elses laptop or internet connection. The evidence seems to be that we both like sci-fi (the names) and that captions within infoboxes are a bad idea. I would say that is not exactly damning evidence, certainly not on my part when I am mostly leaving intact the very things that I seem to gone to the gallows for. I am seeking a commution of my sentence as I feel I have been given a draconian sentence, which seems to follow an excessively harsh one meated out by RHaworth, given that there was nothing solid regarding captions within infoboxes. I took it like a man, moved on and tried to steer clear of the stream of vitriolic abuse that has eminated from Jeff79. I honestly don't know if wikipedia has ever made anyone so bitter, but he seems to have got there, and he was pretty much there as soon as I joined wikipedia. In the British sitcom Spaced, Tim reacts to Brian's apparent betrayal by exclaiming "You Lando!". As writer/actor Simon Pegg explains on the DVD commentary, "...[Lando Calrissian] is the modern Judas". I have suffered the stream of abuse, however I took the high road, and now I've been accused of removing captions, not something that I really care about too much, yeah I'd rather not have them, but by the sounds of it I have been acused of setting up this account with the intention of removing captions for a user who retired 8 months ago. I don't get it and I would like the situation reviewed in full.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have requested a review from an administrator, hopefully I shall recieve an answer, one way or the other after a review of both the case itself and the material I have added here.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Guasch

The article David Guasch has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. RadioFan (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mitch Rivett

The article Mitch Rivett has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Lando09/Alex Thompson

User:Lando09/Alex Thompson, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lando09/Alex Thompson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lando09/Alex Thompson during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Newtown Jets squad

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Newtown Jets squad, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newtown Jets squad

Template:Newtown Jets squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Max Edwards

Notice

The article Max Edwards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable RL player. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]