User talk:Sully89

The article From the pavilion has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I've moved the content of the deleted article to your userspace at User:Sully89/From the pavilion. If you can find reliable independent sources (see WP:V) to show that this webgame is notable per WP:WEB, please add your sources to the article and feel free to repost. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Neither of the sources you cited mentioned "From the pavilion". Also, the first source was a blog. Blogs aren't considered reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - If there aren't any independent sources that mention your game, you need to wait until there are such sources before posting your article. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - No, sorry. It needs to not be a source that anyone can post to. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - No bones. If we bend the rules for you, we'll have to do it for everyone. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - At least two independent sources. I've asked you several times to read WP:V and WP:RS -- it would save a lot of time and questions if you would do that. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of From The Pavilion

A tag has been placed on From The Pavilion 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 a copy be emailed to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Pavilion deleted again

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Selket ^Talk 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of From The Pavilion

A tag has been placed on From The Pavilion 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 a copy be emailed to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of From The Pavilion

I was too quick in clicking CSD, and I have already removed the tag. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of From The Pavilion

I have nominated From The Pavilion, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Pavilion. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FTPSquadpage.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FTPSquadpage.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) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FTPHeader.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FTPHeader.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) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Partnerships.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Partnerships.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) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of From the pavilion

I have nominated From the pavilion, 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/From the pavilion. 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. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Robot, 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. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl

I realize from your edits that you view him as robotic, but please stop adding this into articles. Thank you. I have issued a block of 72 hours for your recurrent additions -- Samir 03:38, 5 October 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).

Sully89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have references, its a fact. not vandalism

Decline reason:

You're lucky you're not indefinitely blocked. Kindly don't bullshit us. If you want to vandalise content, go somewhere else; otherwise, take advantage of the fact that your block is only for 72 hours, and edit constructively after it expires. Your choice. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:34, 5 October 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).

Sully89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Whose bullshitting who? I had referances for my edits. I added in the referance in the place it needed to be.

Decline reason:

Explain [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. MuZemike 02:28, 7 October 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).

Sully89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yeah, after i got warned for those, i got referances. The edit i got blocked for is legit. I can only assume two different admins delt with me once each for the same, previous edits, effectivly doubling up on the punishment

Decline reason:

You're not blocked. Closedmouth (talk) 14:05, 8 October 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.