LEAVE A MESSAGE:

February 2013

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phil McNulty.
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 Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! _nonsense ferret 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with reference to the message you left at my talkpage - it is best to read WP:BIO which is the guideline setting out the sort of references required to establish a person is notable enough. In summary, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. So the key point is, that if your article is to be accepted, it must reference multiple published articles written about the subject by people not connected to him. There isn't a fixed number. --_nonsense ferret 22:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in response to your further questions: 1. am I an admin? no I'm not an admin, - this isn't required to review pages 2. why doesn't the time update? that is a technical glitch that the template doesn't update, I don't know why but it seems to be the same for them all 3. sorry no, I'm not taking on any new articles at the moment. Hope this answers your questions fully. --_nonsense ferret 22:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it ... now

We don't allow "gravedancing", and I'm surprised to find you stooping to their level. This is an adults' project: grow up. Remove your post, or I'll do it again. Besides, learn the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me to "grow up" isn't very nice at all... How come his comment telling me to get "on my bike" isn't deleted then? I will remove it, though you could have asked much nicer and more WP:CIVIL about it. I was also unable to leave a message on your talkpage; it's semi protected; and with regards to your sign on the page it's clear you're not open to constructive criticism.

Anyway, if in future you don't "like" my post, simply contact me(my page will be unprotected as I don't shy away..) and let me know and I'll rectify it asap.

LalaLAND (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage is currently protected due to extensive vandalism. He was blocked, in part, because of his "bike" comment. You certainly don't have to rub his nose in his block - it wouldn't be ethical now, would it? I'm very open to constructive criticism - too bad you're not, based on your referring to my support of basic human dignity as "aggressive" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, telling me to "Remove it... now" is aggressive. As is telling me to "grow up". I think any sensible person would agree with that. Also, you might want to ask yourself why your talkpage is vandalised constantly? I believe, and correct me if I'm worng, that you protected it so you can remove users posts and not give them a chance to voice their opinions unless they have a registered account. If it were really due to "excessive vandalism" on your talkpage, you could just block those who vandal. It is more likely due to "excessive criticism", seeing how you conduct yourself. LalaLAND (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, have you ever learned WP:AGF? You're so wrong it's not funny. A blocked editor created over 25 block-evading accounts in order to vandalize my talkpage - I received over 400 abusive e-mails by those same socks using the "e-mail me now" function. If you don't understand how the project and its protection works, just don't comment about it ... ok? You clearly don't understand how some vandals work - we just can't keep playing whack-a-mole, can we? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is excessive! I honestly never expected people would be so pathetic to harass you like that. Sorry! LalaLAND (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will note that my "aggressive" tone was necessary: when I removed your offensive and policy-offending post from their talkpage, my edit-summary was very clear about its inappropriateness. When you reinstated it you were almost blocked - especially considering your even more inappropriate edit-summary. Instead, I really needed you to remove the post ASAP ... I'm not a big fan of blocking, so I needed you to pay attention. :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LalaLAND, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi LalaLAND! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:STOP

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DMacks (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, LalaLAND. You have new messages at AlanM1's talk page.
Message added 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Your comments are acknowledged. Your obviously great knowledge of the project, particularly for someone who has only edited for 2 days and who knows the project well enough to make comments on noticeboards, is also acknowledged. Policies and guidelines do support looking into the behavior of individuals whose actions are such that they would draw attention, such as a newbie making comments at noticeboards, for instance. If you are, as evidence very clearly indicates, someone trying to avoid previous history, possibly including some sort of sanctions?, it is certainly relevant to point that out. Also, by the way, I honestly cannot see any just reason for you to link to BATTLEGROUND, as there has been no battleground on my part, simply raising questions regarding the behavior of someone whose actions are inconsistent with their apparent newness. I think you would be much better served perhaps addressing the concerns I raised, including my concern that you accused me of something I do not believe the evidence supports I did, than making patronizing comments on my user talk page. Also, by the way, please refrain from editing that user talk page any further. Your energy would I believe be much better spent addressing the concerns raised elsewhere. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I've already told you I've used Wiki software before, but never wikipedia. Now STOP accusing me of "clearly trying to avoid previous history". You are tiring me out with these outlandish and insincere claims. And to have the audacity to suggest I refrain from editing your user talk page when you hunted me down when I was involved in a discussion that didn't concern you in order to chastise me!? I already told you I wanted nothing more to do with you and your sad attempt to quarrel with me. If you must continue following me, and stalking my contributions, do so with a little more subtlety and try and resist the temptation to chastise and berate me whenever you can. I feel I must once again recommend reading -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground . LalaLAND (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that your response seems to include misstatements of fact regarding my own reasons for my questions about you, which pretty much violates WP:AGF, that you accuse me of making aspersions which I have not necessarily made, which consitutes making false statements which is a violation of WP:CIVILITY, nd of basically not actually addressing many of the points made, which violates WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, I am far less than certain that "having used wiki software before" would somehow make you familiar enough with wikipedia itself to so quickly and obviously be willing to make comments on noticeboards, which few if any editors new to wikipedia as wikipedia have historically done. I also urge you to perhaps actually read the page you are so fond of linking to yourself. The only one I see who seems to be indulging in battleground behavior is, frankly, you. I had asked questions which seemed reasonable based on someone with no history at wikipedia being willing to comment on discussions which seemed to me to potentially, maybe, be related to them in some way, and the responses have been almost exclusively, to my eyes, irrational, inflammatory, and basically completely nonproductive. In general, it is considered good behavior to become at least passingly familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines before making comments on the application of them. So far as I can see, the only such page you seem familiar with at all is your favorite battleground page. I very sincerely believe that it is in your own best interests to develop at least a minimum understanding of the other basic guidelines and policies around here, including those I linked to above, before perhaps making further statements which honestly do little if anything to help your cause, but rather to raise questions about your matters of your own conduct and hsitory. John Carter (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You claim I'm violating WP:AGF yet you continue to accuse me of being a former blocked user based on no evidence. I think it is you who should assume good faith- but clearly think you're above abiding by policy(laughable). Please stop harassing me and stalking my contributions with the sole intention of sparking pathetic quarrels over trivial issues. It's more that a little tiresome and sad at this stage. I am only going to ask you once, leave me alone and stay off my talkpage. I will not put up with this constant witch hunting. UP WITH WHICH I WILL NOT PUT - I hope I make myself clear. I will spell it out one more time for you: STAY OFF MY TALKPAGE AND DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. If you have 'issues' which you evidently do: take it to WP:SPI or WP:ANI, but for the last time leave me alone. Now you have a good day. LalaLAND (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phil McNulty concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phil McNulty, 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) 12:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phil McNulty

Hello LalaLAND. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Phil McNulty".

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 edit the submission 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/Phil McNulty}}, 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) 16:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]