User talk:Halli B

Speedy deletion of Gary criss

A tag has been placed on Gary criss 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 band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 musical topics.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. fr33kman (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a biography page to stay it needs to meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria. If he has lot's of references then provide them. :-) fr33kman (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course alot of my posts are to other users talk pages; they are to users who, like yourself, have received a speedy deletion notice for a page of there's that I've come across as I've been patrolling the Special:Newpages patrol. Learn how wikipedia works before thinking you've got one over on me, okay? Most users who post to other people's talk pages are leaving them tag notices :-) Cheers! fr33kman (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Halli, you can object to it it the correct Wikipedian manner by editing the page and inserting the {{hangon}} tag at the top of the page. You're a wikipedian too and have all the rights I do! fr33kman (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't delete that article, I was actually starting the debate off in the talk page when it was pulled from under me by an admin. If you want to recreate it, then go for it, but it sound's like the admin agreed with me. In that case, get all your references together first and then write the article. Hope this helps :-) fr33kman (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Halli B, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! fr33kman (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The page you created List of television shows set in Cincinnati did you mean for that to be redirected to WKRP in Cincinnati or did you actually want a new page? At the moment it is one link so me or someone else might want to delete it as a 'nocontent' article per WP:CSD#A3. Please let me know, thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only one TV show that's *ever* been set in Cincinnati, why is it logical to have a list? If this one is not speedy-deleted, it will probably be sent to WP:Articles for deletion. If you could explain your thinking, it might help. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for creating a hoax article. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Sorry about that "Ninja Dad" article. Unilaterally banning me without warning is a bit harsh. Please note that there was no discussion amongst the community either. I apologize, do you think a block of 5-7 days would be fair for a "first offense"? I mean, I haven't even been warned about anything (see my talk page). Thanks.}}

If you agree to stop creating adding hoax material to Wikipedia I would be willing to reduce the block as you suggested above. Tiptoety ^talk 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

Sir, I fully agree. Creating articles like that will not happen again. You can hold me to that. Thank you very much for the second chance. Halli B (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me contact the blocking administrator, please bear with us. Tiptoety ^talk 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Halli B (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that comments such as this one will not be allowed if you are unblocked or your time reduced and doing so will result in your block being reset. Tiptoety ^talk 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been reduced to 31 hours, like I stated above any further disruption once your block expires will result in a indef block. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Further comments: aka JeanLatore (talk · contribs) - checkuser block - Alison ^❤ 23:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

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).

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

Request reason:

WHAT? What do you mean? plz. explain.

Decline reason:

Once you are blocked, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia any longer; creating this new account was against the rules. If you think that you've solved the problems that made the block necessary, you can appeal it on the talk page of your original account, but you can't create a new account to avoid the block.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:03, 12 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

what new account? I dont see any evidence.

Decline reason:

A checkuser looked at some technical information associated with your account and determined that you are on the same computer as a banned user, and logically the same person as well. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (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.