User talk:Vanished user wrteugweyr

Community ban
After a discussion, you have been blocked indefinitely, banned because you have exhausted the community's patience. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request
this is exactly why i hate wikipedia. i want to leave it, but like i said, im not going to be disruptive. ill just wait a few more months and see if people are willing to be a little more reasonable. i really can't believe im getting these kind of decline comments though. the basic thrust of your decline is that (1) my comment was too long, and (2) i didn't address the reason for my block. well, i didn't realize there was a length requirement for a unblock request. i was trying to be as thorough as possible. yet, in my effort to be thorough, inexpicably, ive been accused of not addressing the reason for my block.

in reality, ive been quite clear. i was blocked two years ago for sockpuppets and disruption. i havent done anything in two years. i dont want to be disruptive. i dont want to create sockpuppets. i just want to delete my account. ive read the rules, and the rules say that my block should be lifted.

ill never understand this. in trying to follow the rules these past few days in trying to get unblocked, ive been repeatedly accused of violating the rules. yet, i haven';t been doing things wrong. on the other hand, two of the other people who have been dealing with this have committed policy violations, yet no one cares. it's a double standard. it's wrong.

whatever. ill try again in a few months. again, hopefully 2.5 years away will be enough time for people to be reasonable about this.

(ps: as a side note, it seems pretty obvious to me that if th request is "too long and incoherent for [you] to evaluate", your own words, then you should not have evaluated it.)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Handface! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gary Heavin -

Proposed deletion of Amber Nichole Miller


The article Amber Nichole Miller has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced BLP. No real claim to notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Michig (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rachelle Leah


The article Rachelle Leah has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Doesn't meet notability"

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. Nswix (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachelle Leah for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachelle Leah 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/Rachelle Leah 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. Nswix (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jacobson v. United States
Jacobson v. United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)