User talk:Bobsanders1991

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Faith Carlson (January 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Anarchyte was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anna Faith Carlson and 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.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Bobsanders1991, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Faith Carlson (January 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

When we talk about "reliable sources" on WP we do not mean celebrity magazines or sites -- we mean actual newspapers and magazines that have fact-checkers and editorial policies. I removed some of the more egregious ones. Next, being a "look-alike" is not terribly notable, and that is all that is said here. I don't think that this will meet the notability criteria.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anna Faith Carlson and 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.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Faith Carlson (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anna Faith Carlson and 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.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Faith Carlson (February 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anna Faith Carlson and 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.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Anna Faith.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anna Faith.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 23:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Th3Rea$on

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.

A tag has been placed on Th3Rea$on 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 or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: 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 page. Thank you.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gabriela Bandy

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.

A tag has been placed on Gabriela Bandy 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 person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. GILO A&E⇑ 00:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really best to work on an article in a sandbox or Help:Userspace draft until it has enough in it to avoid speedy deletion. Because we don't want readers of the encyclopedia to come on them, articles that don't give some indication why their subject is important or significant get speedily deleted.

If you like (reply below here) I will userfy this one - restore it into a userspace draft where you can work on it; but think hard about references first, because I am afraid you will be wasting your time. "Popular on social media" is unlikely to mean notable in WIkipedi's sense. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Antje Utgaard

The article Antje Utgaard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inadequately sourced. Does not establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, possibly as a result of this account being compromised. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I 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).

Bobsanders1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why was my account blocked? Bobsanders1991 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For edits like this one, I guess. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2017 (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.

Bobsanders1991 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bobsanders1991 compromised?, where it was noted that this account had suddenly started making edits that look like vandalism - this and this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits themselves are not so serious as to warrant an immediate block, but when a good faith account like yours suddenly starts deliberately damaging articles it is often a sign that someone else has somehow gotten control of the account. That is why you are blocked, and will need to remain so unless and until you can provide believable assurances that the original user of this account is in sole control of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so, the plot thickens. You can add sockpuppetry to the reasons for this block. You will need to address what relationship you have with the accounts listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bobsanders1991 as well to any subsequent block appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever is doing this to my account, this is not me. I have changed my password and regained control of my account. Please Review again. Thanks Bobsanders1991 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GOTHACKED there is literally no way for us to verify that. Normally at this point we advise users to just create a new account, but due to the apparent socking, which you have not addressed, that option is off the table. (you are of course still free to post another unblock request) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from CU: There is no technical evidence that this account has been hacked. —DoRD (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think I was hacked? I clearly wasn't...Bobsanders1991 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just said, right up there, that you had to "regain control" of your account. Whether it was actually hacked or something else happened isn't really the issue, you apparently lost control of it at some point. (unless your previous assertion was untrue?) so this account is pretty much a done deal. This doesn't mean that you can never edit Wikipedia again, but we need to talk about the socking if you want to be welcome to edit again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are what is wrong with the world. Everyone is so uptight these days. No one can have any fun. Enjoy chasing your tail...Bobsanders1991 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Antje Utgaard

The article Antje Utgaard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This biography does not meet wikipedia criteria for notability. No updates since 2016 on "career". Suggest deletion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Trumpkinius (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Antje Utgaard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antje Utgaard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antje Utgaard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Trumpkinius (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]