User talk:Feral-Golduck

Welcome!

Hello, Feral-Golduck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Ready of Saga, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! John Collier (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ready of Saga

A tag has been placed on Ready of Saga requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. John Collier (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Slick (album)

A tag has been placed on Slick (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. John Collier (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ready of Saga

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ready of Saga, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

not a remarkable musical recording

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. John Collier (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Slick (album)

A tag has been placed on Slick (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Slick (album), a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered vandalism to remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created yourself. If you disagree with the deletion then you should place a {{hangon}} template at the top of the article. In the future do not remove these tags from articles you have created yourself. Your edits have alleviated the problem and someone else would have removed the tag anyway if you had followed the rules. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to David Rolfe (musician). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Smashville^talk 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Manhattan Records. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

former subsiduaries

Hi, None of your edits have sources so it is hard to know if they are reliable and factual. They appear to be non-factual so I am reverting them - but it will save a lot of time if either source them if true or stop if untrue. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:37, 11 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am really sorry

Decline reason:

Good, but this does not address the block reason, see WP:GAB. — Sandstein 19:24, 11 January 2009 (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.

13 January 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Google Inc.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Notorious (2009 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Viva Piñata (TV series). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

You were recently blocked for adding improper categories to articles incorrectly asserting (or asking) if they were subsidiaries of Viacom or other larger companies. Now, after your block, you are doing it again diff diff. Stop now, or you will be blocked again, likely for a much longer period. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo this; you seem to have a lot of trouble with categories and corporate structures. So much so, that it appears as outright vandalism. Please do not touch another business related article without an explicit source. Kuru ^talk 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was fairly specific. Please be prepared to provide sources for all of your edits before requesting an unblock. Thanks.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am really, really sorry

Decline reason:

Which, again, does not address your block. See WP:GAB — Smashville^talk 22:58, 19 January 2009 (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.

You have been blocked from editing for 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy as a result of your repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} . Kuru ^talk 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Former Microsoft subsidiaries

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Former Microsoft subsidiaries, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Former Microsoft subsidiaries has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Former Microsoft subsidiaries, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am really, really sorry

Decline reason:

Good, but this does not address the reason for your block. See WP:GAB. — Sandstein 22:48, 19 January 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

better not this let it happen again

Decline reason:

Still doesn't address the reason for the block, and you've pretty much used up the three requests that is our unofficial limit. Since it will expire soon, you can show us you're sorry by editing productively when it expires. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (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.

Blocked

Feral, I've ignored your socking and other odd editing patterns, but you're still adding completely uncited nonsense to many corporate articles despite being asked many, many times not to - it just comes off as simple vandalism at this point. Please, if you'd like to contribute, limit yourself to 'only adding clearly sourced material from here on out when your block expires. If you'd like to be unblocked, please explain your additions over the last few hours in detail. Kuru ^talk 03:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - and you're right back at it. Kuru ^talk 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spike That Rumor!

Sorry, there's to truth the rumor to which you alluded here: [1] I should know. I'd never even heard of Turbo Dogs before you mentioned it. However, there is another rumor you should be talking about, but perhaps I've said too much. Itsamike (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Walt Disney Company subsidiaries has been nominated for discussion

Category:Former Walt Disney Company subsidiaries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]