User talk:DrHeLpErZx

DrHeLpErZx
Hi DrHeLpErZx, While your statement that you (under the name "DrHeLpErZx") are not DrHeLpErZx may be true, this remains a problematic article as you are responsible for all of the content, the cited refs don't reveal all the personal information you report in the article, the tone and content are lauditory, and this article has been removed before, I'm nominating this article for a POV-check. This does not mean the article will be deleted, but it does mean uninvolved parties will examine it.

Please do not remove the POV-check tag (as you did the autobio tag) until this process is complete, and there is some consensus by outside editors. Any examination can only create a better article and a better encyclopedia. Thanks, T L Miles (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Aguie debelius
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Aguie debelius, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Aguie debelius is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Aguie debelius, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because the name is that used by another person in their professional career.


 * This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:
 * Add  This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Changing username.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text  or emailing the administrator who blocked you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Please do not make any other edits until your name change has gone through. BencherliteTalk 08:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. DarkAudit (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proper template
The above is more of what I was trying to get across. Other warning removed. Removing AfD templates while the discussion is still ongoing is considered bad form. It tends to prejudice other editors against the article without having even read it. DarkAudit (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)