User talk:Stlrbrt

A tag has been placed on Lloyd Trammell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

no sources

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. LukeTheSpook (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Sabec

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

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Christopher Sabec requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Eminem. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Fin ©™ 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of P2P Top 40

A tag has been placed on P2P Top 40 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 - 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Kudpung (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

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 once 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/The Trichordist.
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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Trichordist concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Trichordist, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 13:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission The Trichordist

Hello Stlrbrt. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled The Trichordist.

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/The Trichordist}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Rightscorp, Inc. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:47, 3 June 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Stlrbrt reported by User:D'Ranged 1 (Result: ). Thank you.

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring and sock puppetry at Rightscorp, Inc, promotional editing,and false accusations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

foxbarking and others were repeatedly vandalizing the entry placing poorly written and misleading statements Stlrbrt (talk) 7:52 am, Today (UTC+1)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:50, 5 June 2014 (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.

Please do some homework

From your deletions and comments, I suspect that you are unaware of some of Wikipedia's core principles when it comes to making contributions to Wikipedia. I urge you, before your block expires, to read the articles listed below in order to have a better understanding of how articles are created and edited here.

The five pillars

These are the fundamental principles that define what Wikipedia is and how it operates. It is a good idea to know about them and understand them, even on a very basic level. Specific applicable guidelines and policies in the current situation are noted below.

Five pillars

Wikipedia core content policies

These policies exist to ensure that Wikipedia presents balanced, factual, verifiable information, rather than biased, incomplete information. It is essential to have a working knowledge of them when contributing here.

Additional applicable content policy

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

In particular, items 4 and 5 are very applicable.

Conflict of interest

In your case, an apparent conflict of interest exists; ideally, you would not be making direct edits to Rightscorp, Inc.; rather, you would propose edits on the article's Talk page and other editors would either make or reject them. The section Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest is particularly pertinent in this regard.
Other policies and guidelines

Familiarizing yourself with these will go a long way toward making your contributions useful and constructive:

Vandalism

Your edit summaries consistently misrepresented the material you removed as "vandalism". Please familiarize yourself with what that term actually means on Wikipedia. Additionally, it appears that you have ignored or not read the edit summaries of those who reverted your reversions; please review the article's [history] and note the many edit summaries that mention "information erroneously described as vandalism" or similar language. It would also be helpful if you read the posts on the article's Talk page and post any concerns you have with content there, as is suggested in the Conflict of interest policy.

Edit warring

This details the prohibition against constantly removing other editors' contributions.

Sock puppetry

This is a detailed examination of "sock puppetry"; editing under different account names or editing "anonymously" by signing out and attempting to edit from an unregistered account.

Key policies and guidelines

Please read the summaries provided in this article and explore policies and guidelines further by following its links.
A pertinent essay

Wikipedia is in the real world

Your contributions and behavior here are documented in perpetuity and readily available to anyone with a connection to the internet. Once content has been added (including content on Talk pages, block logs, etc.), it is never permanently removed. Contributing to Wikipedia is very much like living in a glass house that has a "rewind" button; this essay details some special considerations for those with actual, apparent, or perceived conflicts of interest.

I hate requesting blocks on editors; in your case, I felt there was no other way to reach you and stop your misconduct. I hope you'll spend some time on this and contribute more effectively in the future.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 23:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]