User talk:Allison419

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Allison419, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 07:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hannah Hughes[edit]

The article Hannah Hughes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nan actor lacking non-trivial support. References are generally passing mentions. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON.

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. reddogsix (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hannah Hughes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hannah Hughes 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/Hannah Hughes 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. reddogsix (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that 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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2015 (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).

Allison419 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe this block was made in error. This is the only account I have.

Decline reason:

That does not appear to be the case; can you provide some transparency around your relationship to the Yolandie1981 account? Kuru (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2015 (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).

Allison419 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for taking time to review this. I'm unfamiliar with the account and don't know where the link came from. Please let me know what further information I can provide. Allison419 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the confirmed CheckUser results, I don't believe you are being honest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 3 August 2015 (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).

Allison419 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read the information on what CheckUser is. I don't understand what I can do to confirm my identity though. I haven't vandalized anything or done anything wrong, I don't know what I'm being suspected of doing or what turning off my account for a week accomplishes. If no one can help me I guess I just have to wait? Allison419 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've reblocked with talk page access revoked. I'm afraid you don't get to waste administrators' time indefinitely. The result of a Checkuser revealed you to be using a sockpuppet. You have only been block for a week. After that week is done (August 9, it appears), you may return to editing. Before that though, please do not create another account. That is in no one's interesting. Hang in there and ride the block out, please. ceradon (talk • edits) 11:16, 3 August 2015 (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.