Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Local business program, needs more national notability and news coverage. Do not cite Forbes contributor article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rocket Club (program) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rocket Club (program), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 18:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, 216.194.32.123! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 18:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Stacey Farber, you may be blocked from editing. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Stacey Farber. Last chance to drop this before you get reported. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, 216.194.32.123. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rocket Club (program), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 19:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, 216.194.32.123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Rocket Club".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! 5a5ha seven ( talk | contribs) ^{citation needed} 18:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Vukky. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to ICarly (2021 TV series) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Vukky 📘 ^{(not a bot, woo!) ( talk to me)} 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Tymon.r. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Bill O'Brien (American football)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bill O'Brien (American football). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bill O'Brien (American football), you may be blocked from editing. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Billy West without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Waxworker ( talk) 18:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You seem to be familiar with the Bold, Revert, Discussion guideline, so I wanted to explain why your removal of the charts wasn’t constructive. Since the charts were not compiled together by a single editor have been been on the two articles, Weather of 2022 and Weather of 2023 for multiple months, a removal of those charts would be the “Bold” edit in the BRD process. A discussion was actually started already to determine whether or not the charts should be removed. So the discuss part of the process is already underway. The next step is to wait for that discussion to end to have a community discussion on whether to keep or remove the charts. If you have any further questions, feel free to message me on my talk page! Have a good day! Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Since you appear knowledgeable about the usage of metric measurements for precipitation, perhaps you can provide a reliable source for this at Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 27–30, 2014. Peaceray ( talk) 03:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Seawolf35 ( talk) 22:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism, as done at Battle_of_Re'im.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This was only done to prove to you why you need to promptly EC-protect these pages! -- 216.194.32.123 ( talk) 22:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

The block is completely appropriate. You'd be blocked for edit warring if you weren't blocked for vandalism. If your intent is to help Wikipedia, this wasn't the right approach. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:11, 7 October 2023 (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.

( talk page stalker) I am not an admin so I cannot accept or deny your ban appeal, however, for someone wanting to prove a point that a Wikipedia guidelines/protection policy was needed, you practically proved you are not ready to edit Wikipedia. You have clearly read enough policy to understand what EC protection is (and short-handing it), but somehow you clearly didn't actually read this policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Based on your ban appeal, if I was an admin, I for sure would have not accepted the appeal as you do not seem like a person who isn't here to help build an encyclopedia. Before your ban expires, I suggest taking a look over Wikipedia policy and be more careful going forward. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:27, 7 October 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Now, if I was a sockpuppet, why would I be stopping my own agenda? Let’s not be moronic, people. 216.194.32.123 ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

No, let's not. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:29, 3 December 2023 (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.