User talk:Weareunited878

Talk page access revoked. If you wish to appeal further you will need to contact WP:BASC by emailing them directly. 21:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My articles I want to know why my articles weren't good enough to be true articlesWeareunited878 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Have you read the links I just posted in my explanation to you? The guidelines there will tell you why your articles weren't significant enough for inclusion. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Weareunited878, you are invited to the Teahouse Hi Weareunited878! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Speedy deletion nomination of 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season Hello Weareunited878, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Speedy deletion nomination of 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season Hello Weareunited878, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Deletion discussion about 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season Hello, Weareunited878, I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season . If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] May 2013 Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. If you disagree with the deletion discussion, you should communicate with the closing admin (me in this case), rather than just reverting. LFaraone 09:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Speedy deletion nomination of 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season Hello Weareunited878, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was previously deleted by a consensus decision. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Proposed deletion of Benjamin Trulli Hello, Weareunited878. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Benjamin Trulli, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Benjamin Trulli to be deleted, please add a reference to the article. If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Ochiwar (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Proposed deletion of Benjamin Trulli The article Benjamin Trulli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Unsourced and likely hoax While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/Stalk 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nomination of Benjamin Trulli for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Trulli 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/Benjamin Trulli until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/Stalk 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] June 2013 Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Benjamin Trulli. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Ochiwar (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Trulli, you may be blocked from editing. Taroaldo ✉ 01:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] This is your last warning. The next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Benjamin Trulli, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ochiwar (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] I created that article in Memory of Him, Yes I know he weren't like George Best but players and managers still pay the respects to him today so think before you delete this articleWeareunited878 (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  GedUK  13:02, 16 June 2013 (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). Weareunited878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Why did you block me Decline reason: You can infer from the above litany of warnings that you were blocked for creating hoax or other inappropriate articles. Kuru (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2013 (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. 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). Weareunited878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: How is creating an article about a football player a hoax when can I be unblocked Decline reason: Unblock? Some day when you've grown up a bit, maybe. Don't waste your unblock requests - your talk page access can be cut off if you don't address the problem properly. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (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. 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). Weareunited878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I dont know what you mean by address the problem but I wasn't creating a hoax I was simply trying to make a good article and dont mean any harm Decline reason: If you genuinely cannot understand why you were blocked, then I am afraid you may well lack the competence to edit here. Please read the guide to appealing blocks before filing another unblock request; further appeals that fail to address the issues involved will lead to your talkpage access being revoked. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 17 June 2013 (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. Advice 'Addressing the problem' means explaining what you were doing, and why, in a way that convinces us, and producing reliable evidence (see WP:RS) to prove you were right all along. As I said above - don't waste your requests. So far as I am concerned, you've got one more go before the talk page gets turned off. Wikipedia admins are usually patient with newcomers, but we do have limits. Peridon (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Unblock 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). Weareunited878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Look I'm sure I didnt mean to seem like I was vandalizing Wikipedia I was mearly making an article about a dear friend that passed away in February 2007 and I forgot to added souces and etc so could I please be unblocked Decline reason: As they are a "dear friend" you have WP:COI. This person does not meet our notability guidelines. If your intent is to write about them, then Wikipedia is not the place for you - or this article. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (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. Weareunited878 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yeah He didn't get a professional contract until the 2006/07 season and he was due to make his Manchester United dubut the weekend after he died.... so official websites and newspapers but what if he didnt get press coverageWeareunited878 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] If there's no proof, we can't have an article. Basically, we aren't here for memorials or might have beens (or even the up and coming). Or for things that aren't recorded anywhere else - that comes under original research WP:OR. If we allowed original research, we'd be knee deep in things that didn't exist, or were quite unprovable. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon^::==( o ) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] unblock 2 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). Weareunited878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Look I'm sure I didn't mean to seem like I was vandalizing Wikipedia I was mearly making an article about a dear friend that passed away in February 2007 and I forgot to added sources and etc so could I please be unblocked and if you unblock me I wont do it again Decline reason: Re posting the same unblock request that was just declined is all the indication I need to conclude that Iti s time to revoke your ability to appeal here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2013 (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. If you produce the sources here, it might help. No guarantee, though. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Sources are ManUtd.com,Bentrulli.com,premierleague.com "bentrulli.com" does not exist. You'll need to provide links here to actual links to the articles talking about your friend, not just names of websites. --jpgordon^::==( o ) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]