Cls14 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
James is my flatmate, I haven't do anything to deserve a blocking. I may have given up this account after 13.5 years but I don't want it to appear I've broken any rules! Cls14 ( talk) 18:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This appeal does not address the obvious behavioural similarities between the accounts. MER-C 09:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Well, having retired due to being bullied and then blocked for things that someone I live with did I guess this is a rather poor end to my 13.5 year as an honest editor of Wikipedia. Well done, you've won. Enjoy your power. I just wish I could go and delete every single article I carefully researched and every single edit I did. Proud of yourselves eh? :-( Cls14 ( talk) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
I just noticed this user has been blocked. May I just say that I think an indefinite block is pretty severe and extreme for one breach of the rules. I have followed this user's work for some time as we often work on similar areas and the vast majority of it has been productive and well researched. Does the fact that this editor has been editing trouble free and productively since 2006 count for nothing here? Surely this should be taken into account?
Given this, If (s)he has broken the rules inadvertently or otherwise then perhaps they should be given a chance to apologise for it and given another chance. Extreme sanctions like indefinite blocking for users like this do not in my view help the project and will simply drive away valuable editors. G-13114 ( talk) 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The article Visual geography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced since 2006.
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.
Mccapra (
talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:WOSO News: October 2020 |
Hello
WOSO editors! Fall Focus: FA WSL articles
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/FA WSL to collaborate and organize with other editors. Every little bit helps! Thanks for your contributions!
WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY (which only includes the players in two currently active women's leagues)? Often times there is enough media coverage that meets WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. For more information, see WP:WOSO#Notability and be sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}
Want some tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors? |
Thank you for your continued contributions to articles related to women's football / soccer (WOSO)! |
Women's Football / Soccer Task Force |
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Weston and Waverley Wood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of any notability. This isn't listed by any authoritative body and the only source is to a local page authored by the public. Just appears to be another wood. If there is any significance , it could easily be bundled into a nearby village article. 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.
Velella
Velella Talk 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parade, Leamington Spa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
DragonofBatley ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Cls14 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
James is my flatmate, I haven't do anything to deserve a blocking. I may have given up this account after 13.5 years but I don't want it to appear I've broken any rules! Cls14 ( talk) 18:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This appeal does not address the obvious behavioural similarities between the accounts. MER-C 09:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Well, having retired due to being bullied and then blocked for things that someone I live with did I guess this is a rather poor end to my 13.5 year as an honest editor of Wikipedia. Well done, you've won. Enjoy your power. I just wish I could go and delete every single article I carefully researched and every single edit I did. Proud of yourselves eh? :-( Cls14 ( talk) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
I just noticed this user has been blocked. May I just say that I think an indefinite block is pretty severe and extreme for one breach of the rules. I have followed this user's work for some time as we often work on similar areas and the vast majority of it has been productive and well researched. Does the fact that this editor has been editing trouble free and productively since 2006 count for nothing here? Surely this should be taken into account?
Given this, If (s)he has broken the rules inadvertently or otherwise then perhaps they should be given a chance to apologise for it and given another chance. Extreme sanctions like indefinite blocking for users like this do not in my view help the project and will simply drive away valuable editors. G-13114 ( talk) 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The article Visual geography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced since 2006.
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.
Mccapra (
talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:WOSO News: October 2020 |
Hello
WOSO editors! Fall Focus: FA WSL articles
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/FA WSL to collaborate and organize with other editors. Every little bit helps! Thanks for your contributions!
WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY (which only includes the players in two currently active women's leagues)? Often times there is enough media coverage that meets WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. For more information, see WP:WOSO#Notability and be sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}
Want some tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors? |
Thank you for your continued contributions to articles related to women's football / soccer (WOSO)! |
Women's Football / Soccer Task Force |
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Weston and Waverley Wood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of any notability. This isn't listed by any authoritative body and the only source is to a local page authored by the public. Just appears to be another wood. If there is any significance , it could easily be bundled into a nearby village article. 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.
Velella
Velella Talk 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parade, Leamington Spa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
DragonofBatley ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)