User talk:Haweythetoon

Newcastle United Online

A tag has been placed on Newcastle United Online, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Newcastle United Online. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Blair - Speak to me 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice some of the more authoritarian admins on this site wish to delete your article on Newcastle United. I have had a relevant article deleted and I wanted to know whether you would feel dis-satisfied enough to sign a petition to reform site policy? Johnjoecavanagh 13:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC/BCE

Please see WP:BCE to understand why your edits on Iran have been reverted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, you need to stop doing that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you will be blocked for disruptive editing, if that's what it's going to take to get your attention here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 19 January 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

All I have done is amended the dates on a wikipedia page, to put them into the correct BC/AD that I feel should be usedHaweythetoon (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring to impose your preferred system of dates on an article in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. Apparently you still don't see why that was wrong. Huon (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2015 (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.

Yes, that is precisely why you are blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]