User talk:Roadbound

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leancy (March 16)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libby_norman&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Libby norman (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HYIP due diligence advice
Please see Talk:High-yield_investment_program for why a section advising HYIP investors about due diligence is not appropriate on Wikipedia. You might want to promote this information through an HYIP blog or forum instead where investors can share opinions and advice among themselves. All reliable sources consider HYIPs to be Ponzi schemes, which by definition will collapse leaving most investors owed money they will never receive. White 720 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Seph Lawless, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 08:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leancy concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leancy, 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) 01:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leancy


Hello Roadbound. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Leancy".

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) 20:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Arguing with us that your edits do not violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH doesn't make it so. Myself and two other editors warned you enough times. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edits at Seph Lawless
This edit needs to be properly cited, per reliable sources. It can not contain original research or personal commentary. The reader cannot decide based on the video or audio alone if that is Seph or not. Please stop edit warring - further edits to revert the changes can result in a block. Please take it to the respective talk page. Thanks. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read this I'm going to give you one last chance, because I recognize that sometimes it seems like "we" don't "want" people adding something to an article and the policies that govern the content can be confusing. You cannot source the subject's birth name to a primary source. No, the US Copyright Office is not acceptable, because it is a primary source. No matter what you read in the talk page. The article's history has been thoroughly oversighted to remove this information. What you need is a secondary source (media, magazine, website, some kind of journalism thing that is considered reliable) that says "Seph Lawless... born Whatever Smith..." or something like that. Without that, you cannot add his birth name. I will revert your latest edit and remove the content from the history. If you require a second opinion, please go here and open a discussion thread. But if you do it again, I will block your account indefinitely. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contentious bad-faith editing and violations of the BLP policy after innumerable explanations and chances, as you did at Seph Lawless. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reviewing admins should see this edit, which attempted to insert a blog as a "fan site". The blog contains all the same contentious and poorly-sourced negative information the user repeatedly attempted to add to the article, even after being asked not to and repeatedly pointed to the relevant policies. The entire recent history of the article was also oversighted, I assume because there was a communication to OTRS or the oversight team regarding this. See also 2014062810000197. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)