User talk:The Toven
The Toven, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi The Toven! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Toven.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan 13:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012
[edit]
In general, a person or organization added to a list, as on Southeast San Diego, should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 01:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Million Dollar Mixtape.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Wywin (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Toven.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
In general, a person or organization added to a list, as on Southeast San Diego, should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 20:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mabeenot (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Incident Discussion
[edit]Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Toven. Thank you. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Please make sure talk messages are signed and don't present themselves as other users' words
[edit]I've reverted this edit you made to User talk:Snowysusan today. The problem is that it gives the appearance that the message is from User:Sionk, when it is not.
the bottom have of the message is in user sionks exact words.this was posted on his talk page untill he deleted it earlier today i assuer you!look at the time it was updated and follow our thread of communications for conformation. it was us who pointed out his own comments to him today unbenounced to us he deleted it and changed the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs)
When commenting on talk pages, please sign your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of the message. Talk pages are a record of discussion: the comments should flow in chronological order, and they should be signed so the contributor is easily identified. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User_talk:Sionk#Articles_for_creation.2FThe_Toven, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't ask for this warnig to be made, but your actions probably made it inevitable someone would do so. Several editors have tried to give you advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Toven. In return you dismiss everyone as biased. It won't help your article or win any friends with that approach, sorry. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Before requesting to be unblocked, you should read WP:No legal threats. Threats of legal action are specifically disallowed on Wikipedia. This comment would have been grounds for your account to be blocked, had Elen not already blocked it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The Toven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
we are attempting to reach a resolution in a orderly and civil mannor thru this communication we want to resolve this issue in a peaceful mannor and although we admitt to not picking choice words correctly and communicating at times over aggressively, obsessed and oppressive wiki editors went beyond explanation and provoked these actions with numerous unfounded accusations and rude comments all of wich we have documentation to and can provide.all we want is our articles that we created accepted and not be bound by a bunch of ambiguos demands everytime we attempt to satify a requirement.
we can also post this request on the Administrators user board if you like
Greevance: Adminstrative abuse/Involved admin
this account was not used primarily for disruption yet it was blocked indefinitely.
we believe we were blocked improperly by administrator "ellen of the roads" This case of being blocked is not straitforward and if the block is not reconcidered right away we will appeal
and contact the arbitration committe directly.we believe that there here has been a conflict of interest amung other violations.in this case pleading to a administrator to remove a block who has potentially violated our privacy as a user inappropriatly, and slandered not only our reputation as contributers but the reputation of the source of the article by falsly accusing him of writing his own articles.Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantagein a dispute in which they are involved must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and IP addresses.in this case the administrator conspired along with biasd editors to block us
as a user.After claiming he was done with the issue and no longer goin to respond User sionk posted a final warning on our talk page wich we had not visited rather than posting it on his own talk page were all the diaolog took place.immediatley after we responded administrator ellen of
the roads block us as users.
please lift you block so that we can peacefully resolve the issues surrounding the articles for creation at hand.we agree to be polite and expect the same from wiki volunteers,editors,and administrators.we are creating the article on the toven's behalf and have not violated any policies that we are aware of.
Decline reason:
Your legal threat in this comment now supersedes any other reason for blocking; you'll need to retract that explicitly before any other unblock request will be considered. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Also, when somebody posts on your talk page, you get a great honking orange banner at the top of every page until you read it; and posting of warnings on your talk page is done because, well, that's where they go - he wasn't, after all, warning himself. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, he didn't post a warning on this page, it was somebody else. Sionk (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thank you.User Sionk placed a final warning deceptivly on our talk page in the middle of communications while we were on his talk page.then simotaneously administrator elln of the roads blocked us a users.a dignified individual should check the time line and seek to confirm this
- So I'm deceptive now, as well as anal and biased? Read my lips - I did not place a warning on your page, or mine. In fact I specifically say above, under Osarius's warning, that the warning was not made by me. You're not doing yourself any favours by personalising this issue. Please just drop it! Sionk (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
that opinion may have been formed prior to the warning for other reasons your fully aware of. either way we were blindsided by the "official last warning"
The Toven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The preveous request was declined for one reason clearly noted above by the "administrator" who declined it.This reason was a apparenty due to a comment or notice to take legal action if not treated fairly wich we believed at the time we were entitled to state.
in a good faith effort to be peaceful,resolve our article issues, and take heed to the administrators request we retract any statement to that affect regarding taking legal action in order to comply with wiki guidlines for the purpose of editing or creating articlesnd any other purpose related to wikipedia as a user(s)
we are attempting to reach a resolution in a orderly and civil mannor thru this communication we want to resolve this issue in a peaceful mannor and although we admitt to not picking choice words correctly and communicating at times over aggressively, obsessed and oppressive wiki editors went beyond explanation and provoked these actions with numerous unfounded accusations and rude comments all of wich we have documentation to and can provide.all we want is our articles that we created accepted and not be bound by a bunch of ambiguos demands everytime we attempt to satify a requirement.
we can also post this request on the Administrators user board if you like
Greevance: Adminstrative abuse/Involved admin
this account was not used primarily for disruption yet it was blocked indefinitely.
we believe we were blocked improperly by administrator "ellen of the roads" This case of being blocked is not straitforward and if the block is not reconcidered right away we will appeal and contact the arbitration committe directly.we believe that there here has been a conflict of interest amung other violations.in this case pleading to a administrator to remove a block who has potentially violated our privacy as a user inappropriatly, and slandered not only our reputation as contributers but the reputation of the source of the article by falsly accusing him of writing his own articles.Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantagein a dispute in which they are involved must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and IP addresses.in this case the administrator conspired along with biasd editors to block us as a user.After claiming he was done with the issue and no longer goin to respond User sionk posted a final warning on our talk page wich we had not visited rather than posting it on his own talk page were all the diaolog took place.immediatley after we responded administrator ellen of the roads block us as users.
please lift you block so that we can peacefully resolve the issues surrounding the articles for creation at hand.we agree to be polite and expect the same from wiki volunteers,editors,and administrators.we are creating the article on the toven's behalf and have not violated any policies that we are aware of
Decline reason:
Thank you for withdrawing your threat of legal action. Your appeal is still declined, as the reasons for your block are self-evident from the warnings above. You have a very combative attitude that is incompatible with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. This is further evident in this very appeal, where you make attacks against other editors without providing any supporting evidence. Where, for example, was your privacy violated? Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
The Toven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The preveous request was declined for reasons that have nothing to do with the first decline therefore it is clear that the reason for the first decline was one..to get us to retract our so called threat to take legal action and two...to cause us to have to multiply the amount of times we request a unblock simply to further deny our unblock request, and ultimately block us from communicating on our talk page under the basis that we submitted to many unblock request. we will be happy to present all this information to the board to prove our point of view the pattern of unfair tactics used against us! in a good faith effort to be peaceful, and take heed to the administrators request we retract any statement to that affect regarding taking legal action in order to comply with wiki guidlines for the purpose of editing or creating articlesnd any other purpose related to wikipedia as a user(s) we are attempting to reach a resolution in a orderly and civil mannor thru this communication we want to resolve this issue in a peaceful mannor and although we admitt to not picking choice words correctly and communicating at times over aggressively, obsessed and oppressive wiki editors went beyond explanation and provoked these actions with numerous unfounded accusations and rude comments all of wich we have documentation to and can provide.all we want is our articles that we created accepted and not be bound by a bunch of ambiguos demands everytime we attempt to satify a requirement. we can also post this request on the Administrators user board if you like Greevance: Adminstrative abuse/Involved admin this account was not used primarily for disruption yet it was blocked indefinitely. we believe we were blocked improperly by administrator "ellen of the roads" This case of being blocked is not straitforward and if the block is not reconcidered right away we will appeal and contact the arbitration committe directly.we believe that there here has been a conflict of interest amung other violations.in this case pleading to a administrator to remove a block who has potentially violated our privacy as a user inappropriatly, and slandered not only our reputation as contributers but the reputation of the source of the article by falsly accusing him of writing his own articles.Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantagein a dispute in which they are involved must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and IP addresses.in this case the administrator conspired along with biasd editors to block us as a user.After claiming he was done with the issue and no longer goin to respond User sionk posted a final warning on our talk page wich we had not visited rather than posting it on his own talk page were all the diaolog took place.immediatley after we responded administrator ellen of the roads block us as users. please lift you block so that we can peacefully resolve the issues surrounding the articles for creation at hand.we agree to be polite and expect the same from wiki volunteers,editors,and administrators.we are creating the article on the toven's behalf and have not violated any policies that we are aware of
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. This is an almost letter-for-letter copy of a declined unblock request (above). Normally unblock requests should not be removed, but if this one was submitted in error, it would probably be all right to remove it. If this was not an accident, however, repeating yourself is not going to get a new answer. - Vianello (Talk) 20:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Did it occur to you that there are multiple reasons why you have been blocked? C.Fred mentioned earlier on this page that making any form of legal threat is grounds for indefinite blocking, even in the absence of any other problematic behavior. You can read why at that link, but the fact is none of your appeals would have been reviewed until your threat was retracted. As it is, reposting essentially the same unblock request repeatedly will not work - you need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and what you will do to avoid such conduct in the future. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
we have done that above in preveuos request above.
The Toven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please note these unblock requests are for Administrative use only we question weather administrators have denied all our preveous request The first unblock request was denied reason being a legal threat in our second submission we acknowledged such legal threat and retracted it. The second unblock request was declined for reasons that have nothing to do with the first reason for the first unblock request that was also declined. The third unblock request denial had nothing to do with the first and second unblock request that was again denied. so far each ambiguous reason denial has changed upon a request being submitted which is completely unreasonable.As noted several times in our above requests we have complied and demonstrated that we understood the issues and agreed to correct them yet numerous what we believe to be "administrative staff" have denied our request. again we believe the reasons for numerous declines are to one..to get us to retract our so called threat to take legal action and two...to cause us to have to multiply the amount of times we request a unblock simply to further deny our unblock request, and ultimately block us from communicating on our talk page under the basis that we submitted to many unblock request. we request to be unblocked
Decline reason:
While the legal threat has been retracted, the other issues have not been addressed, and this is, as with the other unblock requests, chock full of WP:NOTTHEM. Please read WP:GAB before requesting unblock again, and in your unblock request address why you were blocked, an understanding of your fault in the matter, and a genuine, good-faith assurance that you are aware of the reasons for the blocking and that you will not return to that behavior if you are unblocked. The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
- I might also point out that there is no such person on Wikipedia as "ellen of the roads". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
elen of the roads [[1]]
salute to the master bushranger for being so highly decorated we dont want any problems with you if you cant beat it you gotta join it we want to get on your good side and learn from the best.we have to run now and get back to watching a great cowboy's and indian's movie!
The Toven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please note these unblock requests are for Administrative use only you have acknowledged the legal threat issue to be retracted and resolved we were originally blocked for "disruptive editing" and we acknowledged the reason and agreed to comply with the guidlines pertaining to editing we do so again herin as well as in our first request to be unblocked.There are no other issues to be dealt with regarding denial reasons because the other reasons for denial are not valid reasons directly related to disruptive writing but rather request for unblock content. again we have demonstrated the we understand and have attempted to resolve this issue in a peaceful mannor yet continue to be met with a avalanche of unreasonable demands from a overwhelming amount of editors including some that are non administrative.
Decline reason:
Sorry, but no. Your vague and throwaway responses to C.Fred below give no indication that you've understood any of the relevant guidelines. Had you given specific examples of improvements, backed up with specific sources, I might have been inclined to unblock, but "photos... notable residents... other things" supported by "local news media" indicates a total lack of effort, and implies a corresponding lack of comprehension. You also haven't addressed your combative and dismissive attitude towards other editors, which is just as disruptive as your actual subject contributions. Yunshui 雲水 09:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
- You indicate that you are willing to comply with the guidelines pertaining to editing. As demonstration of that willingness, and of your ability to abide by editing guidelines, please find an already existing article (not a title in Articles for creation) and answer these questions:
- What improvement would you make to the article if you were unblocked?
- What reliable source supports the change you would make?
- Please reply directly below this message (not inside an unblock template). You must sign your message. It's harsh, but failure to sign amounts to evidence that you can't follow suggestions and guidelines. This administrator awaits your reply. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
we would be happy to however we are confused.Please verify weather or not you are a actual administrator before we continue.
- Wikipedia:List of administrators/A-F#C. Now, signing your messages has been explained at least twice, plus it's below the edit box every time you edit a page. Got that part of it? —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
[[2]]
Mount Hope, San Diego
we would improve and add more value to this article by adding photos,and notable residents among other things.it seems to have been rather neglected.
one reliable source would be the city counsel member in charge of the 4th district Tony Young others include community leaders and ironically the source of the article of creations for The Toven which we have created as he was raised in the heart of Mount Hope.—nowritersblock 01:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, I meant secondary sources. Primary sources can only be cited in limited situations; a city councillor is only a reliable source for certain items about the council and the city. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
the union tribune,county records,or local news media —nowritersblock 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Help Hello? This user has unusually been awaiting a response from user C.Fred for 4 days nownowritersblock 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding. I agreed with Yunshui's assessment above and didn't think I needed to comment further. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
response
Yunshui's response was at 9:04 long before you began asking your series of questions you began asking us therefore how could you have agreed? your last question/comment was this below at 1:57 pm:
- To clarify, I meant secondary sources. Primary sources can only be cited in limited situations; a city councillor is only a reliable source for certain items about the council and the city. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
if you agreed with Yunshui's comment not posted in a sequential order(as you suggested in a preveous post)why did you mislead by continuing to ask question was that by any means a standard of wiki administrators? do you consider this appropriate treatment towards this user?
as demonstrated in post later that day a additional adminstrator continued to ask questions-nowritersblock 15:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please recheck the timestamps in question: My comment was at 01:57, over seven hours before Yunshui's decline of your unblock request at 09:04. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
which proves my point how could you have agreed with that user before his comment was posted weryou using your own or his opinion?your actions are in excusable you went backwards they will be addressednowritersblock 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's try this again. You asked why I had not made any further comments. I hadn't because, when I saw Yunshui's comment, I thought it covered the matter entirely. Thus, when you asked four days later why I hadn't replied, I said I didn't think I needed to, that Yunshui covered the matter.
- I'll now be blunt. I'm done with discussions here. I endorse the indefinite block of this account, and I'm no longer willing to discuss ways you could get unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Who is "we"?
[edit]For the sake of full disclosure, as I do not see this answered elsewhere on your talk page: can you clarify why you consistently use the pronoun "we" to refer to yourself? --Kinu t/c 03:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
we would prefer to stick to the above thread with C.Fred as we wait for a response regarding our block as well as the much needed task of improving the above mentioned article which has been long neglected.
Rather than starting a whole new page or topic about what "we" means here is our response to the your inquiry.we mean nowritersblock,me,myself,and i,or "we" as in we the american people.sorry did using the word "we" break a rule? is a signed response or edit not adequate for editors or administrators? we also began using this term to protect ourselves from the many unfounded accusations from wiki editors of being the source or of creating articles about ourself hence(articles of creation for The Toven).
we would be happy to use the word "i" if using the word "we"violates policy we hereby kindly revert back to the above thread with C.Fred and have no further comments regarding this topic untill our underlying issues have been dealt with— nowritersblock 04:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- To be frank, I'm not understanding what you're saying. Is "we" in this context simply the use of a plural pronoun to refer to one individual (similar to the majestic plural)? If it is not and there and there are multiple individuals using this account, please note that this is prohibited by policy. Thus, clarifying your statement is in fact very relevant to the unblock request you have posted and your response seems necessary here. --Kinu t/c 04:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
no multiple users.One human being Kinu —nowritersblock 05:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Help Hello? This user has unusually been awaiting a response from user Kinu for 4 days nownowritersblock 21:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Getting Unblocked
[edit]Hi Toven. I know you're pretty upset about being blocked. If you want to get unblocked, there are a few key things you'll need to understand/work on. Every blue link you see below links to an associated policy or guideline. Take the time to read them; I'm only going to cover the basics to try and help you understand WHY you were blocked and what you work on.
- Battlefield mentality - Nobody is trying to bash you or your music. We have guidelines as to what is and isn't notable. The broadest test is put forth in the general notability guidelines. There are more specific notability guidelines that apply, including musician notability guidelines, but GNG is usually the big one. When the articles you tried creating were denied, it was because the sources don't carry enough weight to stand the test of GNG. Reading up on reliable sources should tell you what to look for when trying to pull up a source.
- Promotion - Wikipedia is not meant for promotion. You yelled at Sionk because you felt he is keeping the word of MDM from being spread. Wikipedia isn't the place to try and build up hype about an artist or an album/mixtape. If you plan on getting unblocked, you need to start thinking about areas you could contribute constructive material to. I saw you say that you wanted to work on the Mount Hope article. That's great, but the information would have to be verifiable. Maybe one day you'll blow up and be bigger than any other artist, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. We can't see the future.
- Personal Attacks - You can't be attacking other editors, like you have done to Sionk, C. Fred, Wywin, and others. Assuming good faith with other editors will get you far. Like I already stated, nobody is trying to put down you or your music. They're saying that the information isn't notable. When responding to others, don't get upset if you're told no. Work on the advice they give you, but realize that sometimes there is nothing you can do. If the information can't be reliably sources, then your best bet is just to let it be.
I know this is a lot of stuff to look over, but if you're serious about getting unblocked and becoming a productive editor on Wikipedia then these guidelines/policies will really help you out. I'll be watching your page, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave them here and I'll get back to you. Ishdarian 06:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Toven, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Million Dollar Mixtape, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello The Toven. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled The Toven.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Toven}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Million Dollar Mixtape
[edit]Hello The Toven. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Million Dollar Mixtape".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Million Dollar Mixtape}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)