User talk:Louis Belasco

Welcome
Hello, Louis Belasco, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jared High concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jared High, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. 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) 02:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jared High


Hello Louis Belasco. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jared High".

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 and remove the  or  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:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notce
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User: Louis Belasco. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And deleting it is highly obstructive. Do not do it again.  if you are contesting the charges, post at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you hit "revert" on ANI again (especially with profanity in the edit summary) I will block you. This is your last warning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Too late. A successful appeal for unblock is likely contain an undertaking not to repeat this behaviour. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leonard Trevallion


The article Leonard Trevallion has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Howie Williams, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leonard Trevallion


A tag has been placed on Leonard Trevallion 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 a person or group of people, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RolandR (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm Wgolf. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Leonard Trevallion because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leonard Trevallion


The article Leonard Trevallion has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Please stop. If you continue removing Biographies of Living Persons PRODs without addressing the issue, as you did with Leonard Trevallion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Zola Budd. Wgolf (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Zola Budd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. 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:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Neil N  talk to me 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Although your block was for edit warring, there are civility issues with your posts and edit summaries as well. Please realize that even though you might vehemently disagree with the actions of other editors, you are still expected to behave calmly and reasonably. Continuing to call other editors "cunts" or something similar after your block expires will only get you blocked again, this time perhaps indefinitely. Focusing your comments on content is the only way you're going to get your points heard. --Neil N  talk to me 20:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Zola Budd. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Neil N  talk to me 13:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Rebecca Wight— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rebecca Wight with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Murder of Sakia Gunn with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Rebecca Wight. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)