User talk:Standleylake40

Welcome!

Hello, Standleylake40, 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, like Standard Football Company, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

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 your user 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mifter (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Standard Football Company

A tag has been placed on Standard Football Company 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 company or corporation, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Mifter (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to United Football League (2008), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrShamrock (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of New York UFL

A tag has been placed on New York UFL, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of American Football Association(planned)

A tag has been placed on American Football Association(planned) 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 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:American Football Association logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:American Football Association logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of American Football Association(planned)

A tag has been placed on American Football Association(planned) 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 company or corporation, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 07:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of American Football Association(planned)

I have nominated American Football Association(planned), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Football Association(planned). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of American Football Association(planned)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article American Football Association(planned), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unremarkable football league, nonexistant, unknown if it will ever exist

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. -Zeus-^u_c 03:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of American Football Association(planned)

A tag has been placed on American Football Association(planned), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

A tag has been placed on American Football Association(planned) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as American Football Association(planned), you will be blocked from editing. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of leagues of American and Canadian football, you will be blocked from editing. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject NFL

Welcome! ~Richmond96 t • c 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United Football League (2008).

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in United Football League (2008). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Please also see what I wrote on the article's talk page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cruz?

Hey Ryan, is this you?

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Football League (2009). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at United Football League (2009). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:37, 12 March 2009 (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).

Standleylake40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not the only one who has been reverting the work of these users. The users who have been deleting the External Link in question do not contribute anything to this article, they have continually tried to delete articles related to this topic. This block is justified if the other users were blocked too, but otherwise this is a wrongful block. The other users who participated in this edit war also broke "wikipedia" policy. The External Link to UFLaccess.com should stay. Half of the references in the article go to this source anyway. UFLaccess.com has been sourced by ESPN, Reuters, and CNBC multiple times. I believe the continued deletion of this link is unmerited and it's a reliable source. Thank You. Standleylake40 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 22:33, 12 March 2009 (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).

Standleylake40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want a real reason, not just a link to a related page on """"wikipedia"""" policy or whatever. Please if you are an administrator, please give me a reason the link to UFLaccess.com shouldn't be on the article United Football League (2009). Standleylake40 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:3RR. BTW, demanding things on Wikipedia gets you nowhere. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (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.

Note to admins

I forgot to block this user earlier on and he requested unblock twice (both turned down). I've blocked him now for a period of 18 hours. As his unblock was declined twice before; if he requests it a third time please could you remove his ability to edit his talk page. Thanks. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

I think you should try editor assistance which is basically an informal process where you're individually paired with an experienced editor, who amongst other things will help explain Wikipedia policy to you. I don't think you'll get the answer you're hoping for from any sort of dispute resolution as most of the points you disagree with are clearly prescribed in various Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, and in fact a neutral editor has already commented on the matter, which is basically what dispute resolution will do. Hippopotamus (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try mentorship as a useful possibility too. Hippopotamus (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to United Football League (2009) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Football League

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself, the United Football League (2009) hasn't started yet so can hardly be judged "major" or "minor" at present, and in reality, in Wikipedia terms it's irrelevant whether it is one or the other as it is more important to be neutral. Similarly, don't mark controversial changes as "minor text changes" as it really is misleading. Why not contribute something positive to the article? The league is getting more coverage in the mainstream media lately so there is more reliable information that can be added. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions.

I'm a bit confused by your statement here. Could you explain what you mean by that? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post

Please see my post on Talk:United Football League (2009)#Edit wars (again), as I saw that you were one of the participants in this edit war. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to United Football League (2009), as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. 75.177.138.235 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL

You need to stop. The media guide was released three days ago and is infinitely more detailed and accurate than the little blurbs on their website. Read the media guide. See where Rob Ryan is listed under owners, see where his bio has him listed as an owner, and see the staff listing for the Locos and where he is listed as an owner. Seriously, this is insane. I gave you the link to the media guide. Use it. Pats1 ^T/C 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edits have been on UFL articles over the past year, and yet apparently you haven't even looked at the media guide. Don't tell me to "do my homework" when I have tens of thousands of edits here, am an admin, and have, you know, actually read the media guide. Here is the link. "Do your HW before you change things." Pats1 ^T/C 02:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Las Vegas Locomotives

(702)-951-9257

William R. Hambrecht, Owner

Rob Ryan, Owner"

"Rob Ryan

Owner of Las Vegas Locomotives

& Member of UFL Board of Directors"

The media guide was released the day of the first game (Thursday). I'm going to assume it's correct. I know what you mean about the UFL, but the webpage you're referring to has been around and unchanged for weeks. The media guide is a treasure chest of new and updated info. Pats1 ^T/C 03:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What was that supposed to mean? Pats1 ^T/C 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Explain yourself. I've been following the website and the league closely since before the draft. I've built a lot of the content you see on the UFL articles right now. Look at the edit history of the articles dating back to the spring. I was waiting for weeks for the media guide to come out since the coaches/executives pages on the websites were clearly incomplete/out of date. That was confirmed when I went through the new media guide and examined the staff lists. If anything, the fact that you didn't know about Rob Ryan being an owner proves that you aren't educated about the UFL. Please. Pats1 ^T/C 03:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't "assume" the UFL had a connection to the NFL. I never titled that section that way, somebody else did; I simply objected against the entire section being deleted simply because it was mis-titled. Besides, I've followed commentary on the UFL closely over the past year (mainly through PFT and UFLAccess) to know its goals and its place among other football leagues; I know it doesn't have any official connection with the NFL. Secondly, there's a reason why Wikipedia has a policy against "third-party sites" (and that's a bad way of putting it, because UFL Access isn't a third party site in the same way as a commercial newspaper is; Wikipedia actually wants sources to come fom third party sites as much as possible, not official websites of the article topic). Thirdly, I've followed professional sports long enough to know the value of a media guide. It is an official publication put out by an organization's media relations department that contains official and accurate information (save for dumb errors/typos) that usually can't be found anywhere else; this is the case with NFL media guides and most UFL executives come from NFL backgrounds. So to say that I should be using various media reports and interviews cobbled together on UFLAccess to form a basis of fact OVER an official publication put out by the organization is beyond questionable, it's downright asinine. I'm not saying the media guide is the end-all, be-all of UFL information, and that anything else is speculation, but its official staff directory takes precedent any day of the week over some site like UFLAccess reporting that Bret Munsey is the director of player personnel for a team (which he wasn't; media guide listed him as a player personnel consultant for the league). You have some learning to do when it comes to Wikipedia, and yes, even the UFL. Pats1 ^T/C 04:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your first comment, continue to revert incorrect information. Just remember that there is a hierarchy of reliable sources - a media guide falls well above a fansite that posted information before the definitive source was even available. As for your second comment, don't let your status as a fan (and hopefully not as an employee) of the UFL cloud your viewpoint and make statements about future events that may or may not occur. In a few years, the NFL could make the UFL an offer they couldn't refuse. That's how this business works, and I'm sure Huyghue and the others know that better than anyone else, especially you. Pats1 ^T/C 04:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, talk is cheap. Money talks. And the NFL has a lot of it. Pats1 ^T/C 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Standleylake40! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Colorado

WikiProject
Colorado

United States
notice board

The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. Several users have asked us to reactivate WikiProject Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. Many articles about Colorado need to be updated and many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs some new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you would like to remain an active member of WikiProject Colorado, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. If you cannot help right now, you can go to inactive status and then reactivate your status later. Thanks for any help you can provide. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Celebration

Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. BTW, I live at Indian Tree. Yours aye, Buaidh 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Wiknic

All Wikipedians are cordially invited to the Colorado celebration of the 2011 Great American Wiknic on June 25. We will meet Saturday afternoon from 3:00 to 5:00 at the D Note, 7519 Grandview Avenue in Arvada. Please e-mail Jacques Delaguerre at Special:EmailUser/Jaxdelaguerre if you plan to attend. Be there or be square! – Buaidh 04:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Colorado

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Colorado, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tim Tebow with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sean Hannity 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. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Tim Tebow, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Zeng8r (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Sarah Palin. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2011 (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).

Standleylake40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just wanted to point out a verse in the Bible that is almost never adhered to by supposed "christians". If this is libel, then I must have moved to communist china or something, I have the right to say whatever I want!!!!!! If you really want to "fix" the articles on here then actually give the facts. This is why wikipedia has such a bad name. because it refuses and the people who run it refuse to give the facts. thank you and please unblock me....... END CENSORSHIP!!!!!!

Decline reason:

See WP:TRUTH. Aside from that, your request completely elides the reasons for your block, so I didn't bother to review your editing history as you seemed not to think it relevant. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2011 (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).

Standleylake40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Im still Standleylake40, this account was not comprimised. Please review my contributions to the UFL pages, of which I tried for 2 years to get Uflaccess.com included in the external links of the page, to which I was continually told it was not relevant. Later it became arbitrarily relevant all of a sudden and was suddenly allowed to remain on the page. i was badgered for over two years until I could finally prove that i was right all along. If that is not censorship, then I dont know what is. I was making a point and I dont beleive that blocking me was warranted. If we blocked everyone on here who attempted to lie or bend the truth there would be like 10 wikipedia editors. Please unblock me and I promise not to vandalize pages to make a point anymore.

Decline reason:

See WP:POINT Jac16888 ^Talk 21:47, 15 December 2011 (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 Rob Ryan (businessman)

The article Rob Ryan (businessman) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]