User talk:Cyrusmilleyhannana

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Nimbley6 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th) for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Barcelona. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Celtic nations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Saline, Michigan, you will be blocked from editing. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Confessions on a Dance Floor. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My aching head. Nimbley6 & Wikipiere are gonna drive me nuts. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your userpage[edit]

Please explain why you have copied text from an article to your userpage. While it's not formally disallowed, I'm curious what reason you have for doing it. Your user page should contain a bit of information about you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Ally McErlaine"[edit]

A page you created, Ally McErlaine, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Newsaholic (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Eddie Campbell (musician)"[edit]

A page you created, Eddie Campbell (musician), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Newsaholic (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for numerous disruptive edits today and recently and edit-warring on Scotland carefully contrived to be just different enough to attempt to argue out of a 3rr breach. The disruptive edits continued after warnings had started to be posted.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. DDStretch (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 51 Whitevale Street (East End)[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 51 Whitevale Street (East End), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article does not establish notability of its subject.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sky Plaza[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sky Plaza, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No claim of notability, no references to demonstrate importance of the structure

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 21 Birnie Court (Red Road)[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 21 Birnie Court (Red Road), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No demonstration of notability, no references to prove significance.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Glasgow International Hilton Hotel[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glasgow International Hilton Hotel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability or even of uniqueness, and no sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article England has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Any more of this behaviour, and another block will be on the horizon. Stop being disruptive! DDStretch (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for immediate return to edit-warring on Scotland, supplying no edit summaries for edits on Scotland and England, and the addition of many superfluous extra headings on Scotland in a way identical to Nimbley for whom you have been reported as a possible sockpuppet. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. DDStretch (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above block is for 1 month to try to reduce the extent to which a repeat of the immediate return to disruption will occur after the block has expired. DDStretch (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]