User talk:Djklein1431

NYJ

This user is part of the New York Jets WikiProject.

Djklein1431 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Full periodic table[edit]

A tag has been placed on Full periodic table, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Splendiferous[edit]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Splendiferous, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HalfShadow 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. HalfShadow 21:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HalfShadow 21:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Splendiferous, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HalfShadow 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As speedy deletion criterion A5 attests, articles that exist merely to define a word are not allowed on Wikipedia. There are limited exceptions—Gay comes to mind—where the term has enough history to it that the word itself is a notable subject for an encyclopedia entry. Those words are very few and far between, and there's no evidence that splendiferous is one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion in no way suggests that the term is not a real word. The deletion is because there is nothing more covered in the article than is covered in a dictionary entry about the word, such as its entry at Wiktionary. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to User talk:Djklein30, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

well that wasnt very nice {{editprotected}} {{March6th}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjlein1431 (talk • contribs)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. This page is not protected. However, your account is blocked, so the only edits that should be made to this page are requests to be unblocked. Since this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another account, you should request unblocking from the primary account. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Talkback}} i would rather use this account because its better Djklein1431 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) {{editprotected}} {{vector version available|new image name.svg}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djklein1431 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please do not add random templates to this page. Also, do not add the {{editprotected}} template again. If you do, you will lose the ability to edit this page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Djklein1431 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

im innocent. i didnt do it. yeah. thats it. no need to read more. im done. finished. stop reading. now. good. Djklein1431 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edit history at this account alone justifies a block. The connection to a previously-blocked account closes the case, and your actions here show a decided lack of interest in editing constructively. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.