User talk:White Eaglet

Removing unreliable source

Hey, I have removed the reference to this site as it is not a reliable source. It is self published source and these should be avoided and cannot be used as a reference for a living person. Might be of help to read WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. Thanks, CommanderLinx (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had to remove this source again from Aleksandra Dranka. Self published sources are not reliable. Thanks CommanderLinx (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan: Request for examples of significant coverage

Hi. You recently voted "keep" in the discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan. Please note that there is no specific notability guideline for "oldest person," and any reliance on such a guideline or presumed precedent is misplaced. All such "oldest persons" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as other suitability guidelines such as WP:NOPAGE, in order to have a stand-alone article. You are respectfully requested to please provide links to what you believe are the three best examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per GNG, so other editors may evaluate whether such persons are notable. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (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/153.151.83.197, 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.

Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]