User talk:Nowthenchildren

Welcome!

Hello, Nowthenchildren, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Snax 24, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Invitrovanitas (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Snax 24

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 Snax 24 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Invitrovanitas (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Diplomatic Protection Group, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Caroline Proust

The article Caroline Proust has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hammond

Hi , please refrain from adding uncited and personal opinion from wikipedia articles, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)please refrain from playing God. my edits are very well researched indeed, few and far between. The edit is fact, until it is refuted by the person themselves.[reply]

November 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Brian Sewell. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of London Camera Club

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 London Camera Club 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of London Camera Club

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 London Camera Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I see another editor has already pointed this out to you above, however I would like to reiterate - please ensure you are not adding your own personal analysis when adding content to articles as you did at Richard Attenborough, to do so contradicts Wikipedia's policy regarding maintaining a neutral point of view.Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, I'm Jonathanfu. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Richard Ingrams, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jonathanfu (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you many times that Wikipedia is not interested in your own personal analysis and commentary - material added to articles must be supported by reliable sources. As you know that your edits are contrary to policy yet continue adding unsourced POV statements to articles, your edits are disruptive. If it continues you will be blocked from editing further, so please ensure you read through the concerns raised here as well as the links provided to the related policies and guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

As you continue to add your own personal opinions and viewpoints to biography articles, and refuse to discuss or address the issues raised by other editors with regard to your edits, consider this a final warning. If you make any additional edits wherein you insert your unsupported opinions to articles you will be blocked for continued violations of Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6 June 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism and disruptive editing. Despite a clear final warning you continue to edit disruptively and therefore have been blocked. I'm not sure why you thought outright vandalism would be even remotely ok. At this point I see only two possibilities: 1) your account was hacked or 2) you're not here to build an encyclopedia. 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. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]