User talk:Ggoere

we all hate wikipedia

January 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Soap— 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy as a result of your repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} . Kuru (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charnock, Sheffield

Hi. I am sorry that my removal of content from Charnock, Sheffield made you decide to leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, this means that we cannot write about things here unless they have been written about somewhere else first—for example, in a book, newspaper, or magazine. The events that you describe in the Charnock article would seem to me to be important enough that they will have been written about in the local newspaper or on the BBC News; however, when I looked at The Star and the BBC news I couldn't find anything about them. If you could show me where these events have been written about outside of Wikipedia, I can help you to add the information back to the article in a way that follows Wikipedia's rules.—Jeremy (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Your userpage has had some information removed in accoradance with Wikipedia policy because it revealed too much personal information. Although all Wikipedia editors are encouraged to remain anonymous, it is especially important for those under 18, and so your userpage was edited per policy and for your own protection and safety on-line. I'm really sorry about that and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add it. For some useful information on privacy and safety, take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages. (Adapted from [[User:Alison) —Soap— 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hurricane Arlene (2011)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Hurricane Arlene (2011), to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is just a real fake, as a hurricane can't form in January, not be in the news, get to Category 5 and make 740mbar-It is way too cold to do that in January. Tpxpress (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let him off Tpxpress, he might have made a mistake! Jeez! Give him a break, he's probably really upset about the way Wikipedia is going for him at the moment... he doesn't need that kind of offensive comment, Tpxpress. It was completely uncalled for. You're unbelievable sometimes... GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2011 trip to Manchester cancellation controversy

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as 2011 trip to Manchester cancellation controversy, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you create an inappropriate page (or any other form of vandalism), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Soap— 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2011 River Don flood

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as 2011 River Don flood, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2010-11 Charnock floods and mudslides

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as 2010-11 Charnock floods and mudslides, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nakon 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Howden House, Sheffield

The article Howden House, Sheffield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that the subject meets the general notability guidelines.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hanover House

The article Hanover House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that the subject meets the general notability guidelines.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of West Bar Block 1

The article West Bar Block 1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that the subject meets the general notability guidelines.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bowman Brook

The article Bowman Brook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that the subject meets the general notability guidelines—has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robin Brook (river)

The article Robin Brook (river) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that the subject meets the general notability guidelines—has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robin Brook (river) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robin Brook (river) 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/Robin Brook (river) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Jeremy (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1 Sheaf Square for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1 Sheaf Square 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/1 Sheaf Square 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robin Brook (disambiguation)

The article Robin Brook (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, although in this case it is 1DAB. Hatnote to similar names is on Robin Brook.

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. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Park Square, Sheffield

The article Park Square, Sheffield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable roundabout with little evidence of notability

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. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]