User talk:Raspberry Blood

Welcome

Hello Raspberry Blood and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Knick Knack have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sylvester Stallone. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Do not move pages to incorrect or nonsensical titles. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Growth, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Growth was changed by Raspberry Blood (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2017-09-30T15:33:49+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Non-error

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 Non-error requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Non-error. Cabayi (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for what I have done. I was in a bad mood that September morning, but I understand that edits such as this, in which I blanked a page, are never acceptable, no matter how angry I may be feeling. I am here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and my article Non-error was deleted right when I was blocked. Even if that page didn't meet the standards, you can rest assured that I created it in good faith. Raspberry Blood (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It wasn't just one morning. And if you think Non-error was a good contribution to Wikipedia, you are mistaken. This unblock request convinces me we should leave you blocked at this time. Yamla (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2017 (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.

Given that three months has now passed since the (not all that serious) bad faith contributions, I would recommend that this user should now be unblocked by one of the admins. Block are to prevent vandalism/unconstuctive behaviour, so I would favour an unblock. Given the history of bad edits, the block should be reinstated in the event of further disruption. Oscar247 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were blatant (and very disruptive) vandalism. I see no reason for any unblock.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]