User talk:Nolan2001

Your article
Thank you for creating Paul-Stuart Brown.

However, there are not enough sources to prove the topic is notable, or that it's suitable for a standalone article.

Notability on Wikipedia is based on notice from the outside world. Topics have to be described in detail by several reputable sources before it can merit a standalone article. Reputable sources include news, books, and academic articles. Non-reputable sources include gossip, social networks, YouTube, and blogs.

Please add sources to prove that your topic is notable; otherwise the topic cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Here are some searches you can conduct to find them:

If you can't find sources after a search, it may be deleted. However, you may also want to consider merging or redirecting to another article even if it is not notable.

You may find the below resources to be useful:
 * Help:Referencing for beginners - a guide to adding sources to articles.
 * Notability - more detailed description of the requirement of notability.
 * Help desk - for asking questions about Wikipedia and editing.
 * Tutorial - learn the basics in under an hour.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask via a reply below. Thank you. Esquivalience  t 00:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul-Stuart Brown


The article Paul-Stuart Brown 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) 01:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul-Stuart Brown


A tag has been placed on Paul-Stuart Brown 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 credibly 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 "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. Omni Flames  let's talk about it  01:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul-Stuart Brown
Hello Nolan2001,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Paul-Stuart Brown for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Esquivalience  t 01:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Paul-Stuart Brown, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Esquivalience  t 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Dayton
Hello Nolan2001,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Andrew Dayton for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Archer (TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. 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 to the bottom of your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Archer (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page
Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss on the talk page: talk:Archer (TV series). wp:talk page guidelines Please leave clear wp:edit summaries. See the wp:welcome page on how to go about editing Wikipedia. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Archer (TV series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Archer (TV series).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Archer (TV series) 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 are 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. Chase (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 to the bottom of your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)