User talk:Ylevental/Archive 3

Re: Miedzianik autobiog deletion

I understand. I thought it was worth a try writing about at least the autobiography. I think that bit about the abortive stage play adaption could be worked into the article on David. Heepman1997 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Might want to ash WP:RSN about that Ylevental (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Heepman1997: Great news, it seems that someone did find another reliable source. I will try to find more reliable information about this book when I have time. Ylevental (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for abuse of multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• You sock account has been blocked indefinitely. Once your block expires you need to stick to this account and edit while logged in to prevent any further blocks. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I originally supported User:Wikiman2718 but changed my views and thought he should be banned based on his actions. I didn't want to tell him.Ylevental (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please also note that you've been disruptive for a long time. You should consider this a warning that further disruption will not be tolerated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:20, 19 June 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that if I should need to justifiably report someone, I will do it with my own account. I will make useful contributions instead. I will only use another account if necessary and allowed. I made the ANI report on the recommendation of an admin, who opposed his agenda-based editing

Decline reason:

It's not just the ANI report that was an abuse of WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 01:22, 20 June 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I will only use another account if necessary and allowed. I should only use my own account for editing articles, nominating articles for deletion, reporting IP vandals, and reporting Wikipedia users to ANI. This goes for many other situations. I will make useful contributions instead.

Decline reason:

Ponyo was nice. Considering you'd been previously blocked for vandalism, I would have likely indefinitely blocked you. You should use the two weeks you have as a break to reflect on how you will behave differently when the block is over. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 20 June 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.

Proposed deletion of File:Sue Rubin 2011.jpg

The file File:Sue Rubin 2011.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Was only used on the deleted Sue Rubin Wikipedia page

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Thomas Clements (writer)

Hello, Ylevental. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Thomas Clements".

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 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)