User talk:Tony Floyd Parker

July 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Brandon Nuw Crawford, you may be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Brandon Nuw Crawford. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. 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.

It is obvious that you are the same editor as Molly James 3 (talk · contribs). Therefore, I have blocked both of your accounts. Repeated removal of the AfD notice on the Brandon Nuw Crawford article nor blanking of the discussion will stop the deletion discussion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in Wikipedia

Hello. In response to the comment you had left at, and then removed from, the Crawford talk page the inclusion of article topics on Wikipedia is based on notability. Articles can be speedily deleted if they given no sense why the topic is significant (basically, why one would even think it would be an encyclopedia article). Notability is measured largely, though not entirely, according to signs that a topic has been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources.

Having been on a movie screen is not automatically considered a sign of significance or notability. Being listed in IMDb, for movie actors, is like being listed in the phone directory: it's routine.
Wikipedia isn't measuring people's own sense of accomplishment. The websites may have been an amazing undertaking, but we aren't judging that. For the websites themselves to have articles, reliable sources would have to have found them significant enough to have reported on them. Even then, notability isn't inherited. For the Crawford article to survive, there would have to be appropriate coverage of him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony Floyd Parker, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]