User talk:The yoster1

Speedy deletion nomination of Robbie Aitken

A tag has been placed on Robbie Aitken requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Robbie Aitken, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Robbie Aitken was changed by The yoster1 (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2010-01-29T10:18:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User:Teapotgeorge. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Anna Lincoln 10:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. CIreland (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 15:21, 29 January 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).

The yoster1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not aware that maikng the page that I was was against the rules on wikipedia and was only deleting speedyy deletion templates to try to prevent the page from being delete. I am very sorry...Please Unblock me?!

Decline reason:

You received multiple warnings, add to that you attacking another user and I find it unlikely you thought what you were doing was ok Jac16888 ^Talk 14:07, 1 May 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.

My bad, I forgot I'd done that... and I didn't know that I had got the messages so....— Preceding unsigned comment added by The yoster1 (talk • contribs)

...and I will warn you now about both WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative paralel timeline theory listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative paralel timeline theory. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative paralel timeline theory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sylvania (Warhammer)

The article Sylvania (Warhammer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]