User talk:Andrewshaw25

Welcome, that article may not be so good though

Lee gracy should probably have more content on it, or you are not fit to create the article. I also found nothing on Google, so...

If this was not vandalism:

Hello Andrewshaw25, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Martinkb ^☎ 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Editing concerns

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Ross Smeltzer did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! --NMChico24 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ross Smeltzer

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Fan-1967 08:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages — it is considered vandalism. You may comment at the respective page if you oppose an article's deletion. Thanks. Fan-1967 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the AFD notice

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages. If you continue to remove them, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fan-1967 22:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

Excuse me Mr. Fan, but what's wrong with my article now? I gave the proper citations which I was told was the problem. Now that I've given them, may I please delete the Consideration for Deletion, and may it please be considered a good article? I'm almost offended that it's continually being considered for deletion.

You've provided numerous sources about String Theory. No one has suggested deleting String theory.

You've also provided numerous sources about European history. No one has suggested deleting European history.

Do you have one single source about Ross Smeltzer, or about any theory that links String Theory and European History? Because that's what this is about. Fan-1967 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Fan, if you would simply look at the articles I provided, you'll find that most of them cite or credit Ross Smeltzer. Be my guest and look, and you will find that I am citing about Ross Smeltzer, not just string theory or history. Thank you.

Nope. Can't find a single one that mentions him. You'll have to identify specifically which link mentions him where. Fan-1967 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't patronize me. There's no way you checked all those sources in that short amount of time. Please check, he's there. This is a valid article.

Don't insult my intelligence. I didn't have to check them. If you can't name one single link, we know why. Fan-1967 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And unless you can find one, empty claims that there are references to him won't prevent the article's deletion. Fan-1967 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just find one, I found several. Stop being so pugnacious and just check the external links.

I've already wasted too much time on this. Name one, or say goodbye to the article. Fan-1967 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you just want me to list one specifically? Here you go... http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311044/ You have to click on the PDF to see the whole article and see his mentions. I'm certain we can now agree to the validity of the artcile now that I've met your demands. Thanks for your time.

FINAL WARNING

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fan-1967 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for repeatedly removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from pages in violation of the three-revert rule despite being asked not to do so. If you wish to cooperate with the community, you are welcome to do so after the block expires.

--Chris (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Smeltzer

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Smeltzer (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been temporarily blocked for repeatedly removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from pages in violation of the three-revert rule despite being asked not to do so. If you wish to cooperate with the community, you are welcome to do so after the block expires.

Persistent violations could result in an indefinite block. The length of this block is 48 hours. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm Eagles247. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Tom Brady that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]