User talk:WhyIsItWereHere22

October 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hillary Clinton. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism, as you did at Hillary Clinton. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:56, 11 October 2016 (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).

WhyIsItWereHere22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will refrain from making edits such as these again. As you can see in my only other significant contribution, the creation of No_Stone_Unturned_(2013_album), I was able to create an article that cited sources and paid attention to detail, showing that I as an editor can be compatible with Wikipedia's standards.

Decline reason:

Did you really need to be told such edits are unacceptable? I rather doubt that. I'm also rather unimpressed by the article you present as an example of you being able to cite sources - iTunes is hardly reliable and the remaining source predates the subject of the article by more than a decade and thus cannot be relevant. Huon (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (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).

WhyIsItWereHere22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If I can find a credible source for my article, would that add credibility to my request?

Decline reason:

Possibly, but unfortunately either way this account cannot be unblocked. Even if this account were clear to be unblocked from its current block I would immediately reblock it as a username violation; please see {{uw-ublock-famous}} for more information. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:03, 17 October 2016 (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 request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WhyIsItWereHere22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked due to your username. Further requests can be made via WP:UTRS. Talkpage access has been revoked due to abuse of the unblock-un template. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Er, that's my fault. See his second unblock request above. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: - Welp. I'm sorry Bob_Dylan1963 in that case. I'll restore the request below. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WhyIsItWereHere22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

I trust that you will not vandalize, which is what your account was blocked for. Please make sure all edits conform with Wikipedia policy, and if in doubt, ask. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reamed your account. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of No Stone Unturned (2013 album)

The article No Stone Unturned (2013 album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability for this iTunes-only "album"; the only non-iTunes source predates the album by more than a decade and thus cannot have anything to say about it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Huon (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of No Stone Unturned (2013 album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No Stone Unturned (2013 album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Stone Unturned (2013 album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Huon (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]