User talk:NovaPlaycer

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I saved the original article years ago, its at the manga fandom now

When the article was up for deletion back on July 25, 2016‎ I exported it over to https://manga.fandom.com/wiki/Brianna_Knickerbocker to save it. You can make changes there to improve it as you see fit. Over 100 thousand pageviews in the past month at the Manga wiki. Dream Focus 01:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming and blanking

Please do Not try to prevent the deletion by moving the page around and blanking it. You are welcome to participate in the current AfD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Brianna Knickerbocker. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi - I see that you have several times attempted to remove the tag from this article, and even move it to a different title. If you do that again, your ability to edit here will likely be revoked, so you will have no chance of saving it. What you need to do if you want to save it is find reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage, add them to the article, and then make an argument at the deletion discussion to the effect that it should be kept. If you're able to do that, I'll make a note to indicate that I have changed my mind, and think that the article should be kept; if you can't do that, the only possible outcome is that it will be deleted. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? That tag must not be removed until the deletion discussion has concluded. Make a case for keeping the page there, but you are just going to get yourself blocked if you keep removing the tag. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Brianna Knickerbocker) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing (repeated removal of articles for deletion template). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 14:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NovaPlaycer, please do not remove tags from articles that indicate an active deletion discussion. If you would like to participate in the deletion discussion, after reviewing Wikipedia's general notability guideline and notability guideline for biographies, feel free to join in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianna Knickerbocker (2nd nomination). — Newslinger talk 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are now blocked from editing the article, you are now unable to add any new sources to it. If you find such sources, I suggest that you provide a link to them at the deletion discussion - if they are reliable, another editor will add them, and the article will be retained. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)r[reply]

Sorry i can't accept this If you want, stop deleting, edit it, it's that simple enough just give up the deletion plan and cancel it, I beg you

Wikipedia is not the same as Fandom - we don't accept articles about every possible subject, we have notability requirements. I considered just deleting the article myself when another user put a CSD tag on it, but I thought it would be worth giving you a bit of time to provide evidence of notability. If you can't do that, the article will be deleted, whether you accept that or not. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must accept that the decision as to whether the article is retained or deleted is not for you to make. As the article has been nominated for deletion the decision rests with the community. ONLY. If you attempt to interfere with this process your block will be increased both in scope and in duration. You are, of course, welcome to take part within wikipedia guidelines in the articles for deletion page. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! NovaPlaycer, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 15:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you something

Why did Brianna Knickerbocker delete her page? You wanted to see it like this

I don't understand your question I'm afraid. Brianna Knickerbocker did not delete anything. I want nothing in regard to this subject other than to ensure that this project's policies are observed. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you edit it instead of deleting it if you want?

Have you read the links you've been directed to about notability? My concern is that our policies and guidelines mean that we shouldn't have an article about her. Let me turn the question around - why do you want an article about her so badly? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Okay i will do what you say what do you want me to do?

I don't particularly want you to do anything. If you want to keep this article, your best bet is to look for reliable sources that give the subject significant depth of coverage, and then comment at the deletion discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced content in hidden comments/notes.

Hi. Please stop putting unsourced information in hidden comments like I noticed what you did with John Snyder and Marc Diraison's pages. That is, AFAIK not the reason why hidden comments are supposed to be used for. You're going to need to back up that information with reliable sources. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reliable source?

It appears from this talk page and your contributions that you are having difficulty determining what constitutes a reliable source. Please read this page in its entirety if you intend to edit biography articles. It is extremely important that you have a grasp on the concept of reliable sources in order to ensure our policies regarding verifiability and living persons are met. I've undone your edit here as you added material 1) sourced to a non-verified Twitter account that 2) made a claim about another person, both of which run afoul of WP:TWITTER.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here makes no sense. Did you read the policies I've pointed out to you above? If you continue to restore poorly sourced content to WP:BLPs, you will be blocked from editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm 108.56.139.120. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Kellen Goff, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So your response to notification that sources are required to avoid sanctions on your account is this? If this disregard for BLP policy continues after this block expires, I expect the next block will be indefinite.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, I did. I realized he was a sock puppet. I'm so sorry I shouldn't have used multiple accounts. But I can make up for my mistake and fix it, will you forgive me and be friends?

August 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued block evasion as of May 5, 2022 through occasional logged-out edits. This resets the clock on the standard offer to November 5, 2022.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Khoi Dao for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khoi Dao 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/Khoi Dao 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.

Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]