User talk:Guydebordgame

Welcome!

Hello, Guydebordgame, 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 InternetArchaeology.org, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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 this 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! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of InternetArchaeology.org

A tag has been placed on InternetArchaeology.org requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. 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 web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Robert Sawyer (author)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Robert Sawyer (author). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sawyer (author). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dump.fm

A tag has been placed on Dump.fm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Ryder Ripps

Hello Guydebordgame. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ryder Ripps, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Creator was not the only editor of this page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rodney Ripps (October 22)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rodney Ripps.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Miniapolis 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Guydebordgame, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

October 2013

Hello, I'm Miniapolis. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rodney Ripps because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please see WP:CREATIVE for the notability criteria for artists, and WP:RS for sources meeting the general notability guideline. Miniapolis 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rodney Ripps concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rodney Ripps, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rodney Ripps

Hello Guydebordgame. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Rodney Ripps".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rodney Ripps}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Rhizome_(organization)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rhizome_(organization), you may be blocked from editing.

 JB04580 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Oriel Gallery shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful edits in the aftermath of a Vandalism campaign

Hi, I'm glad you're now trying to make some useful edits to Wikipedia and learn the ropes after that temporary Block you received for your vandalism campaign of pages I started. Weirdly, you seemed to have almost done a 180 on the issues you were so adamant about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. But I welcome your attempts at bettering Wikipedia. However, making fairly useless edits on the very same pages as the 'edit war' is well... useless other than getting your edit numbers up. Maybe these things immediately spring to mind that might help you:

On article development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_development

Regarding Hiberno English vs American English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English

And in regards to focusing on adding articles about women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_artists

Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reason you keep blanking my edits without explanation? why can't you allow for open discussion on the talk page at least? what are you worried about? wikipedia is not just for YOU, i have a voice too. Guydebordgame (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, Guydebordgame, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Exaltedmoon (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guydebordgame -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I have no idea who Exaltedmoon (talk · contribs) is, nor do i have any idea why you think its me? come over to my house 150 s canon dr. beveryly hills ca and give me a lie detector test, i have no idea who that is.

Hi! ExaltedMoon and not Roy Smith here. I definitely do not know this person and verify that I am a separate account with no COI to the one Wikipedia contribution I’ve made. Though, also in LA, so I may stop by canon drive to clear up the mystery? Exaltedmoon (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I’m not guydebordgame. Still trying to sort out what’s happening— but definitely different people. Exaltedmoon (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bored Ape

Hi Guydebordgame, I just wanted to advice you on assuming good faith during discussions at talk pages, as you've now accused editors twice of acting in bad faith on Bored Ape. Having editorial disagreements is quite normal, and we should strive to discuss the contents, not the contributor. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the note Guydebordgame (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.64.64.172.66 (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct at Bored Ape and Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film) is not acceptable, and was going to get you at least a partial block regardless, but when I saw your repeated comments [1] [2] [3] insinuating that another editor is in favor of child pornography, in response to them raising valid concerns about whether reliable sources support the BLP-related claim you're making, that made this a sitewide block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]