User talk:Spaingy

Inappropriate edit

I removed your edit to the Waterford Institute of Technologypage as it is a value based judgement and against the spirit of Wiki's neutral point of view. The WIT recruits students internationally and like most of the Irish IOT's (which provide research and graduate education) are, in an international context, best explained as a university level organisation. The subtleties and manoeuvring within the Irish education system are neutrally discussed further down the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invara (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More warnings

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Spaingy. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Wickethewok 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense pages

If you create any more nonsense pages you will be blocked. Thank you. --F a ng Aili ^talk 19:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 3 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

--Alabamaboy 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi: Spaingy:

I admit that I also enjoy the Wolfe Tones, but please don't create articles based on there non-traditional songs. Boston Rose is a lovely song, BUT it isn't especially notable and can be safely enclosed within their article. The Wearing of the Green, although covered by the Tones, is an "Irish traditonal" air and as such is much more notable. Thanks. Try to focus on larger topics and things will be easier V. Joe 21:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Graham (producer)

If you are indeed nominating this for deletion, please complete the nomination by filling out this page with your reasons. Wickethewok 15:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a real reason for nominating this person, such as lack of notability or something, I suggest you withdraw your nomination by stating this on this page. Wickethewok 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to an article was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Karamynor.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Karamynor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Whelan

With regard to your comment on this page, I wanted to let you know that I still felt Tara Whelan should have been deleted from Wikipedia. I feel she does not meet the standards for biographical inclusion, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Particularly, you said that many other murder victims were included - this is not a reason for Tara Whelan to be kept, but for those other articles to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created yourself

You noted on two images that you uploaded that you created (i.e. took, using your camera) them yourself. Please excuse me, but I find it highly doubtful that you took both photographs. Please add the actual source and license info to the image pages. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tara Whelan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tara Whelan.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Tara School.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tara School.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gondooley

I saw another gratuitous mention of me on your page. If you are serious about wanting me to write for you, it is essential that you prove you are not just someone who spouts a load of insubstantial nonsense and appears on the cover of a mag that never existed.Gondooley 00:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

How do I edit the image information for uploaded photos. This in reference to the late Tara Whelan. I assume that the family photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_Whelan.jpg is public domain as it has appeared in countless newspapers around the country and on several television channels. The school photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_School.jpg was scanned from the front page of the Waterford Today local newspaper. It was taken in the Our Lady of Mercy secondary school, by a hired photographer who is unknown. I doubt that he would own the copyright on this, so I listed self created on that image, since I scanned it myself. Spaingy

I am sorry, but this is totally wrong. An image is in the public domain if the copyright on it has expired or if it is not eligible for copyright (which generally only applies to trivial works or works of the US federal government). These images are the copyright property of the photographer who created them. You did not create them.

Since we have the source of Image:Tara School.jpg, it is possible to make a claim of fair use, and I have done so. Take a look there and see what I have done. If you can provide an exact source for Image:Tara_Whelan.jpg, you can do the same for it. However, it is definitely not public domain.

To edit the image information for uploaded photos, just click the image or a link to it, click Edit, and add in the relevant information just as you would do for any other page. You can find a list of copyright tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

Finally, remember that you can only tag an image as {{PD-self}} if you are the only person to have had any creative input into its creation. Otherwise, it is copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

I don't mean to sound like a nuisance but can you do the images for me? I don't understand. Thank you. Spaingy 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, because I don't know the source of the image. You MUST MUST MUST specify EXACTLY WHERE you got the image. Throwing around "it's been on TV so it's public domain" does not work. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please mind Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you have a problem with Stifle please talk to him/her. Thanks. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex symbol"

Please don't add any more "sex symbol" assertions unless you can back it up with reliable sources. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course his own website is going to say he's a sex symbol. That's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Finlay

Yes I was aware of that, but it's not automatic, and until you show the source, it shall remain the way it originally was.(Halbared 11:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Pat Kenny

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Pat Kenny, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Demiurge 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Pat Kenny, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Demiurge 21:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Misza13 22:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Pat Kenny, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Demiurge 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said

Well, I added a link to Hollywoodland, it was reversed, now i see you two guys (who are much longer on wiki than i am) are reverting each other's links and giving warning to each other, this simply proves my point, it's really hard to get an agreement on wiki either way. It simply shows ignorance of administrators and their supporters. Nothing but simple repetitions.

You are a publicist? What work are you looking for, it says on your page.

Nice to hear from you, are you an administrator?

You said...

Spaingy

Work as topical and pseudo-satirical writing, such as mainstream and government body critisism, etc. Don't worry about Demiurge, it's really just Pat Kenny. I went on the Late Late to reveal him but I go so worked up all I could say were random slurs as I had just overdosed on six cans of Red Bull. Spaingy 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice reply for a change on wiki, i am glad to hear from you, what did that ahole do? I love satire, i think all those lousy politicals deserve it man, but of course, wiki vandals like the above even more.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:64.107.2.62. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Demiurge 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No attack

Don't put words into his mouth, he did not atack me, 64ip is mine, shut up. THis is all you can do, but can not correct anything else.

Hi

Please don't create personal comments resulting from an editing dispute which appear to be warnings. Would be great to see you take a more constructive approach to editing all round. Let me know if there's anything on your mind. Thanks, Deizio talk 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop adding the line "Wikipedian Spaingy admits to interrupting the show" to the Late Late Show article without a reliable source. Thanks, Deizio talk 15:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

The removal of a large part of this page, including several warnings, was performed by User:BookaBible. Talk pages should be archived rather than deleted. Deizio talk 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this vandalism. Spaingy 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookabible

Either you two are one and the same, very closely connected or you just acted in a very uncivil manner. I'm not going to ask which (they have clever little Wikipedia names for all those offences) but I recommend (as I would to anyone) that you edit under one account and act nice to others. If you have a genuine problem with another user then discuss courteously or find the appropriate dispute resolution measure. Deizio talk 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. If you keep screwing with each other on WP it will get noticed and won't go down too well. Deizio talk 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Alri, you will be blocked from editing. Jonomacdrones 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Neil Buchanan, you will be blocked from editing. Sally Anne 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Ed (Edgar181) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have just signed in to be greeted by this message now. I have reason to believe my lodger was tampering with pages while using my account. Go easy, it's St. Patrick's night and he's after having a few drinks, I am not to blame. Although I am after having a few myself, I am under control. Táim faoi smacht.

Decline reason:

Then just wait until the block expires (and you are sober again). — Sandstein 09:14, 18 March 2007 (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.

Alles in Ordnung. Ja? Alles Klar? Spaingy 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Byrnes_boys.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Byrnes_boys.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterfordgonewild_june2006.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Waterfordgonewild_june2006.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:I_love_black_people_small_copy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I_love_black_people_small_copy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pon and Zi

An editor has nominated Pon and Zi, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pon and Zi and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Demiurge (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Demiurge (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Having reviewed your recent and past contributions, I've blocked your account indefinitely, as you appear to have no intention of contributing positively. You have constantly added nonsense and useless information to Wikipedia, and edits such as those you made to Edith Bowman ("total cow") and other articles about living people are entirely unacceptable. You may contest this by pasting {{unblock|your reason}} below. Thanks, Deiz talk 03:16, 14 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Last night I was under the influence of alcohol and was unaware of the severity of these edits. The statement "...as you appear to have no intention of contributing positively." is completely incorrect and I wish for this block to be lifted as soon as possible.

Decline reason:

Edits like these aren't constructive. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 20:23, 14 October 2007 (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.

It appears that the blocking administrator is referring to a pattern of behavior in your edits and not simply one night of drunk editing. Looking at your contributions, I am inclined to agree with this administrator. I will defer judgment on this request to another administrator, but I did want to point out to you that "sorry, I was drunk" or something to that effect does not change the pattern of inappropriate edits which is apparent in more than just one night's worth of contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the statement "...as you appear to have no intention of contributing positively" is completely incorrect. Spaingy 16:14, 14 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have, however, done some very constructive edits over time. Spaingy 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been given enough second chances, and you obviously don't wish to do much more than cause issues and problems here. No. — Jmlk 1 7 23:42, 14 October 2007 (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.

While you may have a couple of constructive edits, the vast majority are link those listed above and these. IrishGuy ^talk 22:08, 14 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Spaingy 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No unblock reason given— SQL^{(Query Me!)} 13:23, 22 October 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that I have served enough time bring blocked and will now aim to contribute more positively to Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Your request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =)
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you.— ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:44, 4 November 2007 (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.

AfD nomination of Tara Whelan

An editor has nominated Tara Whelan, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Whelan (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tara School.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tara School.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Des Whelan

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Des Whelan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Des Whelan. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I shall contribute positively!

Decline reason:

Meet us halfway on this... prove your intention to contribute positively by following the instructions given to you in the previous unblock template. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:10, 1 July 2008 (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 Leanne Harte

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Leanne Harte, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Martin Hearne

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Martin Hearne, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

un-referenced and insufficient assertion of notability (also orphan)

The Book cited names him as "joint EDITOR" not author. Nothing else to indicate notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott Mac (Doc) 12:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Spaingy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 178 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Brendan Muldowney - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Whelan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tara Whelan. Since you had some involvement with the Tara Whelan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Student7 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Theshaken2 art june2006.jpg

The file File:Theshaken2 art june2006.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Chris doran.JPG

The file File:Chris doran.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]