User talk:Nestor1010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to List of converts to Islam, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. --- But wait, there are no source or unable to verify source that Amy Adams converted to Islam. Thank you. --AndyTheCop (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Amy Adams. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adams

I have no idea. I never go to wikia.com. Cresix (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Thanks anyway. --Nestor1010 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Prolog (talk) 22:25, 30 November 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).

Nestor1010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason was I accidentally vandalized. I'm apologize. --Nestor1010 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And I accidentally declined your unblock. Sorry. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 1 December 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.

(Non-administrator comment) I'm sorry, but did you just say that you "accidently vandalized"? The only type of vandalism is vandalizing in a deliberate manner. You were warned about your disruption before this block was made, but have persisted. I do not feel unblocking is necessary nor a good idea. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:53, 1 December 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).

Nestor1010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me and accept this unblock request. I want to make a future contributions. As I said the reason was I have disrupted Wikipedia accidentally. And I never vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia again. --Nestor1010 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Saying the same thing in a more verbose way is not how to get yourself unblocked. — Joseph Fox 16:26, 1 December 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.

Proposed deletion of Hoyle Puzzle Games 2005

The article Hoyle Puzzle Games 2005 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable game collection. The notable parts already have their own articles.

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. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]