User talk:The Infoboxer

Brett McDermott Paddy Barcoe

July 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Dara Ó Briain. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you. Rodhull andemu 15:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paul Ince. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Pee Jay 19:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Sneyd[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mark Sneyd 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 hangon 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 15:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I declined the speedy deletion of this article, atlhough I did move it to the correct spelling: Marc Sneyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CIreland (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon[edit]

You know you have to add your explanation for adding the {{hangon}} template to the article talk page for it to have any validity. – Pee Jay 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ince (footballer)[edit]

I was just writing an answer to your message on my talk page when you posted there again. Evidently you have already found the page at User:The Infoboxer/Sandbox. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say I told you so, but... – Pee Jay 02:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, where did that come from?! There's no need for personal attacks, now is there? But at least now you understand why Wikipedia has its no crystal-balling policy. – Pee Jay 10:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I have a problem with you? I, for one, can't think of anything that I've done that would indicate any dislike of you. – Pee Jay 10:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there The Infoboxer, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:The Infoboxer/sandbox2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wilshere[edit]

Nothing wrong with the reference style that i used.Supergunner08 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why is the word "Wilshere was arrested" used twice in the paragraph when one will suffice? which helps summarize that section of the article Secondly, the article is for Jack Wilshere not for someone else thus "The woman suffered a broken and dislocated elbow and the man was left with a depressed fracture of the cheekbone for which they were both treated in hospital." is not needed in the Jack Wilshere article. Create a separate article for the assault case to reflect that statement if you want to.Supergunner08 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the issue to WP:FOOTY Supergunner08 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

You must know that when I report you (again) you will be found out and blocked (again). Just what are you trying to do? (Cue ridiculous feigned innocence...)--Jeff79 (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Jeff79#Sockpuppetry.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried having a discussion with you about nicknames. You've continued reverting against consensus. Is it time for another break from Wikipedia?--Jeff79 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Rugby League[edit]

Am I to assume that as you have not commented on the latest version you agree with it ? Codf1977 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa[edit]

The article Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet[edit]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Londo06 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet, or having a sockpuppet, I don't know which and I can't find the investigation anywhere. Also the articles that I have created have been deleted. How would I go about bringing them back into existence before my account is reactivated. Reading through the other man or womans details of Londo2006 I find there are similarities in that two people like football and rugby, I would say that would not exactly be grounds for account suspension. My username is The Infoboxer, a clear indication of my interests here at wikipedia, I have no interests gaining a sockpuppet or losing a sockpuppet. There is no-one else who has access to my computer, anyone using it would ask me and my internet connection is secure. How do I go about my edits from here on out.

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence given in the email from the blocking admin is enough to convince me that you are indeed a sockpuppet of Londo06 (basically, editing areas, editing style, etc). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:25, 21 September 2010 (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.

This is the only piece of official information that I can trace. Can I please have the link to the investigation that deals with my account.The Infoboxer (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Phantomsteve: replied by email. T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]