User talk:Housefullofcards

Speedy deletion nomination of Stagger (2009 film)

Hello Housefullofcards,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Stagger (2009 film) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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. Wgolf (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stagger (2009 film)

Hello Housefullofcards,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Stagger (2009 film) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

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. Wgolf (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Stagger (2009 film). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Stagger (2009 film). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Wgolf (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Black Shuck (2012 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Black Shuck''' (2012 film a film by [[Paul T T Easter]]
09/eastscapes-film-club-1-black-shuck-2012.html#comment-form%20Eastscapes] Review Black Shuck 2012]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Are you editing articles from more than one account? The edits of User:Paul Easter, User:Devadee and others appear to be very similar to yours, on the same articles. Please read WP:ILLEGIT: we're not allowed to edit the same article or contribute to the same AFD by logging in with different user names. Thank you. Ruby Murray 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruby thanks for your reply no i have a interest in Film and Directors which stand out from the crowd i would like to add the data i researched on the film maker there were no links added or taken away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Housefullofcards (talk • contribs)

Fine, but if you're User:Paul Easter, then you need to say so, and make it clear that you're using multiple accounts. Are you User:Paul Easter? Ruby Murray 18:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ruby i can confirm I'm not user Paul Easter

Reverting

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2014‎

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Paul T T Easter

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for edit warring, as you did at Paul T T Easter. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case was at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Easter. Thank you. — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]