User talk:Sponge9

Hello! Sponge9, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drew Adkins.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Eleanor Noble.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Eleanor Noble.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Erin Mathews because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Erin Mathews with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Jake Beale.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jake Beale.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jake Beale.jpg

I've deleted this image a second time per the same reason given in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 2#File:Jake Beale.jpg. Please don't upload it again. If you do, your account may be blocked. INeverCry (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jake Beale.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Jake Beale.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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. Eeekster (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a media file with false or missing copyright or source information, as you did at File:Jake Beale.jpg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Eeekster (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jake Beale

The article Jake Beale has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the 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. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. INeverCry (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Erin Mathews.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Erin Mathews.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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. Eeekster (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Daniel Brochu.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daniel Brochu.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello! Sponge9, 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! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jason Szwimmer

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jason Szwimmer 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jason Szwimmer

The article Jason Szwimmer has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the 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. Dea db eef 01:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Michael Caloz.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Michael Caloz.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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. Eeekster (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jason Szwimmer.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Jason Szwimmer.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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. Eeekster (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I should be unblocked because I don't know whether the picture is copyrighted or not. I don't know if other pictures are or not copyrighted. I promise to not copyright pictures anymore. Sponge9 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you don't understand the difference, I don't want to let you back to do it again. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not do it again. When I create a new page I will not put in any copyrighted pictures.Sponge9 (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You cannot be unblocked until you can demonstrate to us that you are able to tell whether an image is protected under copyright, which you have said you are at present unable to do. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:51, 3 August 2013 (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 might help if you explain to us what the difference is, and what one should do if not sure... Peridon (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can tell whether an image is protected under copyright by knowing that the difference between copyrighted and normal pictures is that copyrighted pictures are from literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and other intellectual works of authors. Normal pictures are taken by people and made by people.Sponge9 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not so. All pictures are made by people, but their legal position as regards copyright depends on a number of factors, which you have clearly not yet appreciated.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:25, 16 August 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have appreciated it by not adding any copyrighted pictures to articles.Sponge9 (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're claiming the pictures you added were not copyrighted, you'll need to make your case for that. Until then, it seems your understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's requirements are not compatible. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:53, 31 August 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't know the pictures I added were copyrighted. How can I get unblocked, by showing you a picture I can add to an article?174.117.175.193 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your narrative has grown tiresome. You have demonstrated over four–count'em, four unblock requests that not only do you not understand this copyright thing, you aren't in any danger of doing so any time soon. So, I will give you a definite answer to your question: You will never be unblocked. At least not this way, because I'm revoking your talk page access since you are just wasting our time at this point. And yours. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2013 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.175.193 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. Wikipedia assumes for its own defense that every image on the Internet is copyrighted, unless otherwise explicitly indicated. There's no need that it have an explicit copyright notice. So, where are you going to obtain (for example) a non-copyrighted image of Michael Caloz? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:26, 1 September 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know the difference between copyrighted pictures. They are owned by people.174.117.175.193 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is the sixth unblock request, and yet you still have no shown an understanding of copyright. No, copyrighted pictures are not just pictures that are "owned by people". Governments, corporations, etc. can also have copyright. In fact, as has been pointed out to you above, Wikipedia assumes every picture is copyrighted unless permission has been given to use it or it is the public domain. It is clear to me that you do not understand, notwithstanding the multiple attempts to point this out. It is also clear to me that you are going to keep making unblock requests without understanding the reason you are blocked or understanding how to edit in the future in compliance with our policies. Therefore, I am removing talk page access at this time. Also, your talk page access has been revoked, but you are trying to edit this page with your IP address. I am temporarily blocking the IP address for block evasion. Please follow the instructions below for how to request unblocks in the future. Singularity42 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2013 (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.

September 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Singularity42 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you have been using your IP to continue to edit articles to try to add images. That IP has been blocked for block evasion. Singularity42 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Companies, governments, etc. can own images. The images are copyrighted if they are owned by them. If an image is copyrighted, someone created the image, paid to own the image, or owned the image. You can not use them for anything if you have asked the owner of the image for permission or pay for it.

Decline reason:

You've been evading your block again; please note that this block is against you, the person, not just this account. The above description is still odd, and does not help clarify your position on adding copyrighted materials. Kuru (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked. The image I posted was not sourced properly and neither were some of the things on my page. I know that I must source all of my materials, including pictures, text, musical pieces, film shots, tv episodes, and youtube videos. I understand I was in infringement of copyright policies and I will not make the mistake again. I apologize for disclarity in my previous responses and for posting the images that were not sourced. Please take this request and unblock me and my ip address. I appreciate it and again am very apologetic for my actions. It will not happen again.

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2013 (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 looks to me like you still don't completely understand. It's not just a matter of sourcing. If someone takes one of my stories and posts it somewhere, I'm not going to be a happy little bunny. Even if they attribute it to me. It's mine, and for making money. (That doesn't apply to stories I make up on Wikipedia to explain things - they're licensed. I mean my stuff outside Wikipedia.) That's what copyright violation is. Taking someone that belongs to someone and using it without their permission. If the police stopped you when you were driving a car you'd just found, what do you think they'd do if you said, 'Oh, it's OK. I know whose it is. It's Fred Bloggs's car. No, he didn't give me permission to drive it.'? Peridon (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2013 (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).

Sponge9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand. It isn't just about sourcing. I have to ask the owner of the photo for permission to use it on a Wikipedia page. I can't take it and use it. I know what copyright violation is. 206.210.116.131 (talk) 12:49 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Whilst you may be getting closer to the idea of what copyright involves, you do not seem to have registered the fact that you are no longer allowed to edit this page - that includes editing whilst logged out. If you are this determined to circumvent Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then I really don't see much future for you here.

Here's the deal: make an unblock request through the appropriate channel (in this case, WP:UTRS or WP:BASC) which demonstrates clearly that you understand what copyright is, what Wikipedia's copyright policy is, and why we have such a policy. You will need to be fairly comprehensive; a couple of sentences isn't going to get you anywhere. Posting again on this page will just indicate that you really do have no regard for the user requirements of this website, and you can expect any future unblock requests - through any channel - to be given short shrift. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:04, 30 October 2013 (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.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drew Adkins concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drew Adkins, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drew Adkins

Hello Sponge9. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Drew Adkins".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drew Adkins}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]