User talk:Bobby n' Joakim

Welcome!

Hello, Bobby n' Joakim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lord Voldemort, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 this 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cind.amuse 16:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lord Voldemort

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

A tag has been placed on Lord Voldemort requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it 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.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Cind.amuse 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Badcliffe. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lord Voldemort with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Hoo man (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at The Hunger Games (film project) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hoo man (talk) 00:43, 23 April 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bobby n' Joakim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree that I should be blocked, but not indefinitely. If you see, that "Badcliffe" article I created was in good faith, and I only had three edits of vandalism, which I agree wasn't the smartest thing to do after getting warnings, but we all do those things sometimes, don't we? This account isn't only being used for vandalism, either, as I haven't done anything about vandalism besides those three edits, and I don't think three edits of vandalism is enough for an indefinite block. Thanks. Bobby n' Joakim (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, we don't all do those things sometimes. At least not when we returned after three days of not editing but having been warned. I think you'll need to sit a little longer before we start to accept your pleas of maturity. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (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.