User talk:Richard Raleigh

Richard Raleigh is currently busy on weekends expect for Fridays and Sundays.

Welcome!

Hello, Richard Raleigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Raleigh, Memphis did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Page

Start asking me questions on this topic.

Mailbox

Hello, Richard Raleigh. Check your Twitter; you've got a tweet!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello there Richard Raleigh, and welcome to the 'pedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help, visit Help:Editing. If you need to experiment, please do so at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we name pages, then visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have questions on how to format pages, then visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump and/or Teahouse. Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes (~~~~). Cheers! ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!, I didn't re-add the previous information to Raleigh, Memphis, but i did add new information. Besides, im new here and i want to know about wikipedia. And also, can you get blocked on wikipedia because i asked someone and he said yeah. So is it true you can get blocked on wikipedia. Richard Raleigh (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, see Blocking policy. Only if you add unsourced content repeatedly do you get blocked for unsourced additions. But you can get blocked for other things as well. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 06:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your compliment! and also i read the blocking policy. Don't need to worry i will read the English Wikipedia. Richard Raleigh (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit there as it is WP:gravedancing. Not something we do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2020 (UT

As by reading both policies. I can not reply to users they have been blocked and had their talk page access revoked. Thanks for reminding me! Richard Raleigh (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spring Hill Elementray (September 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by John from Idegon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Elementary schools are seldom notable, and you've shown nothing to indicate this is an exception. Further, there are no independent reliable sources on the article at this point.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spring Hill Elementray and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Spring Hill Elementray, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard Raleigh! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

I didn't nothing wrong

I got blocked for no reason. I block someone because they admitted to being Romello Brooks. I'm not admitting being that person. You blocked the wrong user because I didn't do anything Yamla. Richard Raleigh (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not a sock puppet to this user. Richard Raleigh (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request 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).

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

Request reason:

Because I'm not admitted to being Romello Brooks. I block someone because they admitted to being Romello Brooks. You blocked the wrong user. I took time to read Blocking policy carefully. Richard Raleigh (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, we blocked the correct person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yetunde Teriba

You clearly lack the judgment or experience to be moving pages around. And your following me there suggests stalking and deliberate disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]