User talk:Cls14

Well, having retired due to being bullied and then blocked for things that someone I live with did I guess this is a rather poor end to my 13.5 year as an honest editor of Wikipedia. Well done, you've won. Enjoy your power. I just wish I could go and delete every single article I carefully researched and every single edit I did. Proud of yourselves eh? :-( Cls14 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Declined unblock requests can not be removed. Due to ongoing abuse from your sock puppets, I am also revoking your talk page access and email access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

May I just say
I just noticed this user has been blocked. May I just say that I think an indefinite block is pretty severe and extreme for one breach of the rules. I have followed this user's work for some time as we often work on similar areas and the vast majority of it has been productive and well researched. Does the fact that this editor has been editing trouble free and productively since 2006 count for nothing here? Surely this should be taken into account?

Given this, If (s)he has broken the rules inadvertently or otherwise then perhaps they should be given a chance to apologise for it and given another chance. Extreme sanctions like indefinite blocking for users like this do not in my view help the project and will simply drive away valuable editors. G-13114 (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:NinjaRobotPirate perhaps you would like to comment? G-13114 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not really. This is CheckUser block, so Cls14 can appeal to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Would he not need access to his email and talk page to do that? G-13114 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is preventing him using his email provider, and he doesn't need talk page access to email Arbcom. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Visual geography


The article Visual geography has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced since 2006."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Mccapra (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Update > October 2020
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Weston and Waverley Wood


The article Weston and Waverley Wood has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of any notability. This isn't listed by any authoritative body and the only source is to a local page authored by the public. Just appears to be another wood. If there is any significance, it could easily be bundled into a nearby village article. Fails WP:GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Parade, Leamington Spa for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parade, Leamington Spa 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 Articles for deletion/Parade, Leamington Spa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)