User talk:Lbrad2001

Welcome!

Hello, Lbrad2001, 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 Matt Eversmann, 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:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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! Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matt Eversmann

The article Matt Eversmann has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Matt Eversmann

A tag has been placed on Matt Eversmann, 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), 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. Novaseminary (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite being warned previously [1], you have continued to make personal attacks against other editors in edits such as this and this. Comments in which you insist that only your preferred version of the article is acceptable such as this and this and this are also not acceptable as they run counter to Wikipedia's consensus-based editing culture. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (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).

Lbrad2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing to violate wikipedias terms of use...I have been maliciously blocked by request of a certain user who disagrees with my edits, he has personally attacked me and not been penalized and yet I am penalized for making, what I will admit are sarcastic, remarks back. View the text of our converations for yourself. He tells me that my opinion does not matter, that the decision on my edit has already been made without taking my opinion into consideration. I point out to him how I feel that my opinion has merit and he simply says "no the rules say I am right". I disagree. The debate was about whether or not we should mention in the WA 2000 article that James Bond used it in a movie and in a video game. We are talking about an extremely rare weapon of which less than 200 were ever produced, and James Bond, one of the most famous fictional characters of all time, uses it twice as his personal sniper rifle. An actual WA 2000 was used in the movie. I'd like to know if the guy who is persecuting these attacks on me can name any other time it is seen on film, ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A HIGH PROFILE MOVIE. He tried to tell me that my reference in the article was not reputable while he himself has a source which is a dead link. If I am in the wrong here explain to me how he can reference a link which does not even exist but I cannot reference one that does? And why does the appearance of an extremely rare gun in one of the most popular movie franchises of all time not warrant mention?

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:18, 9 May 2010 (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).

Lbrad2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

May I also request that Nick-D not be involved in resolving this dispute, he obviously knows and is favoring the user I am arguing with. I would like an unbiased look at this. I wish I had never tried to argue with this guy to begin with, I simply tried to explain my point of view and have now been accused of personal attacks. Why is it that when I ask him for an explantion as to why one of his sources is a dead link he is not required to answer me in any way? Yet when I make an edit to the WA 2000 page I am subjected to a verbal inquisition?

Decline reason:

For future reference, please only make one request. Making multiple requests is not going to help you get unblocked. Also, you may find WP:NOTTHEM useful. When requesting to be unblocked, talk about yourself, not others, like you did above. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:18, 9 May 2010 (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 is asking that his block be reviewed:

Lbrad2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You guys are abusing your power. I simply asked for a reason as to why my information was not useable and why someone else can quote a source that does not exist while I cannot use one that does.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=You guys are abusing your power. I simply asked for a reason as to why my information was not useable and why someone else can quote a source that does not exist while I cannot use one that does. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=You guys are abusing your power. I simply asked for a reason as to why my information was not useable and why someone else can quote a source that does not exist while I cannot use one that does. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=You guys are abusing your power. I simply asked for a reason as to why my information was not useable and why someone else can quote a source that does not exist while I cannot use one that does. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}