User talk:Lmhswikipedia

Ways to improve We are number one[edit]

Hi, I'm HenryMP02. Lmhswikipedia, thanks for creating We are number one!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hello, you recently created the page We are number one. Please consider adding more content and sourcing, as it might get deleted if it isn't deemed notable (see WP:N). Henry ^TALK 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Henry ^TALK 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of We are number one[edit]

Hello Lmhswikipedia,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged We are number one for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and the artist doesn't have an article.

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. Henry ^TALK 18:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested, contested, contested. Lmhswikipedia (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of We are number one[edit]

The article We are number one has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Adam9007 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of We are number one for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We are number one 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We are number one until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Adam9007 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 6 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

We are number one is a legitimate contribution, but it is a very small one. If you have a problem with writing small posts, I will stop writing small posts. WE ARE NUMBER ONE (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The article fails the General Notability Guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2016 (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.

Unblocked[edit]

I speedy deleted the article per WP:A9, but that has been contested,[1] so I've unblocked you for now. If you continue to make nonsense edits such as [2][3][4], you may be reblocked, though. Bishonen | talk 03:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]