User talk:Mobbqbc

Speedy deletion of Leonard Lyons

A tag has been placed on Leonard Lyons 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 indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ShootinPutin109^Talk 11:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lyons

You vandalised Ben Lyons three times. Do not do that. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Ben Lyons has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Ben Lyons constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. –Capricorn42 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ben Lyons. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Ben Lyons. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. JoJan (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoJan (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ben Lyons, you will be blocked from editing. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ben Lyons, you will be blocked from editing. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Ben Lyons. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

I say this again, your continued removal of this content is in vain. I, along with other editors will continue to add it back in, as it is fully sourced and legitimate. If you would like to make constructive additions, feel free to do so. However, I will NOT let you remove sourced, relevant and encyclopedic content because of what I am beginning to believe is some sort of personal bias. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Ben Lyons, you will be blocked from editing. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent vandalism

I thought I should let you know that I have reported your recent unconstructive and vandalous edits to Ben Lyons to the administrator noticeboard. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I week block for edit warring

I have reviewed the edits you have made to Ben Lyon, and conclude that you are edit warring in that you are reverting the same changes made by different contributors. If there is a consensus that certain content should be included, then reverting without consensus is disruption - and if warnings are not sufficient to persuade someone to stop disruption then sanctions need be applied. I shall further use the template since, as this is a week long block, you may wish to challenge the block or undertake to edit in accordance with policy.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ben Lyons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk honestly about this

It's clear that simple warnings aren't going to stop you from vandalizing Ben Lyons, so I'd honestly like to know why you feel that the section shouldn't be there. Please don't tell me that it's just "jealous bloggers", because these are sourced statements from reputable outlets. Roger Ebert is neither jealous of Lyons, nor is he a blogger. The LA Times is not a blog, and I doubt that any of their writers write stories out of "jealousy". I believe that there may be a conflict of interest here, but to be perfectly honest, I'd like to talk to you frankly and openly about why you're making these edits. I'd rather help you become a better editor than just keep warning you, leading to you getting banned time and time again. However, I will say this: If you are simply removing the content to remove dissent, then you might as well stop. There is a consensus between myself and other editors that the section is necessary, and we will not just give up and let you remove it. No matter how many times you remove it, one of us will be right behind you to add it back in. The only way that will change is if there is a change in consensus, which I doubt very much. And please, don't take this as me being snide. I honestly do want to talk to you about this issue and try to work through it. But if you don't want to, and insist on continuing with your vandalous edits, then I see more bans in your future. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ben Lyons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ben Lyons, you will be blocked from editing. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ben Lyons, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]