User talk:Mziboy

Extended content

Removing Speedy at The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel) Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel). Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps: Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion. This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willingly to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC) September 2011 Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with this edit to The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Chris (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages as you did with this edit to The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. --Chris (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Ok, will do, but the article was marked for deletion and people have already defended it. The only person saying it should be deleted is Hegwood. Speedy deletion nomination of Proteus Books If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Proteus Books 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 an organization or company, 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. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Feinoha Talk, My master 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Euro Weekly A tag has been placed on Euro Weekly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC) it's pass WP:NOTE and the speedy deletion was declined. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC) You, Ken Sibanda, and Proteus Books To clarify, what is the relationship between you, Ken Sibanda, and Proteus Books? If there is one, it is generally better to come clean earlier! Cheers Heywoodg talk 13:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Please stop with the insults. It was a simple question, and there is (I don't think) no rule against it. It is just that you seem to have access to their photos from the flickr site, so I assumed you know it/him/them. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is easier to be up front about it if that is the case. Again though, please stop with the insults, there is not need and you are not doing yourself any favours. Heywoodg talk 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Reply to above: Your racism Hegwoodg No relationship exists; because I think you are ignorant does not mean a relationship exist! --Mziboy (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC) You, Nazi Party, and other white supremacists groups Please come out clean about the following affiliation?Its okay, its your right to belong to any organization.--Mziboy (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Ken Sibanda Hello Mziboy. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ken Sibanda, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam). Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Heywoodg talk 17:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Your articles I understand you're passionate about the subjects you choose to write about on Wikipedia, but edits like this one [1] aren't going to help your cause at all here, and will result in you receiving a block from editing. For your articles to survive on Wikipedia, they need to be notable and properly sourced. Attacking editors who disagree with you won't help. Explain what you're trying to do calmly, and respond to other editor's questions with actual answers, not personal attacks. That'll help a lot around here. If you have questions, feel free to ask them here, on my talk page, or on the talk page of the article. Other editors are here to help. Dayewalker (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Nomination of Ken Sibanda for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ken Sibanda 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/Ken Sibanda 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Daniel 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Signing posts Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Yunshui (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Arigatou gozaimasu Yanshui, see above! I wish you luck in helping Hegwood and in making this your personal wikipedia, in which only your content is notable even when you know close to nothing about the subject--Mziboy (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Your recent edits Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC) No you are acting impartial but we both know that you only want to win; different issues are being raised because of that!--Mziboy (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I will continue to edit what I see as lies and impartiality and you can move to have me blocked. --Mziboy (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Why? If you edit another user's comments, you'll be blocked and then you won't be able to comment on your articles at all. Why would you do that, when you know your edits will be undone with a click of a button? Dayewalker (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC) And why would you and Daniel collude and lie just to win content on wikipedia?--Mziboy (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I see that you've been sending me email. I appreciate that, but I prefer to make all of my discussions on-wiki. It's easier for everyone to follow that way. If you have anything to say, say it here (or on my talk page), I'll see it. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC) October 2011 Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Good faith Addressed I agree and have addressed the email issue with Daniel. Good faith should work both ways; please assume good faith in me as well! I gain nothing by documenting something I believe should be documented by wikipedia. It became clear to me that the issues raised in one forum were being raised by the same people in another forum, albeit in a more vitriolic manner! The two articles have been put back for debate other than by the people (including me) who have already made a contribution.--Mziboy (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I've been looking at your recent edit history and find it very difficult to assume good faith. You created two articles and, when they were nominated for deletion, forestalled an AfD decision by blanking them and having them speedily deleted. And then re-creating them immediately afterwards. You seem to have planned this, because clearly you copied the articles before deletion (one of them still has part of the AfD notice in it, which is what drew my attention when looking over new articles). My firm prediction is that this disruptive behavior will soon lead to a block. You're very welcome to contribute here, but please act responsibly and within accepted guidelines and policies. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC) AfD reopened - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel) When you blanked this page, it was deleted per WP:CSD#G7 and the AfD closed. Now you have re-created it under a different title. You cannot avoid the AfD discussion like that: I have re-opened the AfD and (to avoid complications with the links) changed the title back to the original one. If the AfD decides that the article can be kept, it can be moved back to your new title. I will notify all those concerned in the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC) As you have also re-created Ken Sibanda, the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda has also been reopened and I have re-linked the article to it. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Euro Weekly The article Euro Weekly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: No sources at all, it's even difficult to see what it is about: a media company that is delivered in 559,000 copies? Does not meet WP:GNG and without more information what it is about, it is difficult or impossible to improve. 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 {{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. Crusio (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Return.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:Return.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Hello and welcome! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Calabe1992. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, so thank you for taking the time to participate. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Ken Sibanda with this edit, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions about editing, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Calabe1992 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ken Sibanda with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Blanking Stop blanking the page. It cannot be blanked until the deletion discussion is closed. Calabe1992 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages as you did with this edit to Ken Sibanda. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Ken Sibanda. Calabe1992 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Please remove Ken Sibanda entry I believe the debate is biased towards a certain cabal: namely Dennisss, the Dayerwalker, Hedwoodg and Yanshu. I am withdrawing the article on Ken Sibanda and do not which to have it posted on wikipedia. Thank you!--Mziboy (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Please "G8" Ken Sibanda deleted page Please remove deleted page from wikipedia; confusing for public.--Mziboy (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Some Good Faith Advice Please take this advice in the good faith that it's being offered, you need to understand that your desire to write an article on Ken Sibanda just isn't going to pan out right now. It's been deleted twice. Both times you requested the deletion, but it was going to be overwhelmingly deleted by the AfD discussions. Now you've tried to run it through the Articles for Creation process. Unless something significant changes to show the notability of Mr. Sibanda, you're just wasting your time trying to work around the process. Here's a suggestion for you. I can create a page in your space for your article. It'll be like your own personal sandbox, and you can work on the Sibanda article there to your heart's content. When you feel like you've added enough sources to the article to establish notability, you can ask other editors and admins for their opinions. When the consensus is that Mr. Sibanda is notable enough, another editor can move the article into the main Wikipedia space. Please note this article sandbox in your user page is not an official Wikipedia page. It won't be found by search engines or anything like that, it's just a place for you to work on the article and try and get it up to Wikipedia standards. And please take a look at the two previous deletion discussions. If the problems other editors had with the article aren't addressed, the sandbox article is never going to be moved. If you'd like me to set up a page for you, just leave me a message here. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Some advice on Article transparency This message is for Dayewalker: you have no knowledge about the subject and have based your deletion on manipulation of wikipedia editing devices and influence to other "Dayewalkers." I tell you what--- Ken Sibanda continues to do what he is doing and you continue to do what you do! Be well my friend, I think someone once said, "if you hid too long in the dark, you mistake darkness for light!" You can suspend me as well. Thank you.--Mziboy (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Alrighty then. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 19 Hi. When you recently edited Kissinger N. Sibanda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shona and Xhosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination of Kissinger N. Sibanda for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kissinger N. Sibanda 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/Kissinger N. Sibanda 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Daniel 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda. 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221(talk|contrib) 09:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda. 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Kissinger Nkosinathi Sibanda, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Your recent edits Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Not acceptable behavior Mziboy, this is not ok. Please stop nominating my articles for speedy deletion; your actions appear to be retaliatory and will do your article no good - all this does is make you look like someone acting very unreasonably. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC) You may not be aware that by making accusations at others you more or less guarantee that your actions will be scrutinized as well. Your baseless accusations of racism, ungrounded request for ArbCom intervention, and deletion taggings clearly based on nothing more than a desire for revenge create a strong negative impression. You could file a request at deletion review but given what a spectacle you have already made of yourself it would probably be a better idea to just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: Black Widows of Liverpool Hello Mziboy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Black Widows of Liverpool, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is enough here to pass the low bar of A7. Consider AfD if you like, though IMO the refs cited are enough for WP:CRIMINAL. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Request for arbitration declined Hello Mziboy. Your request for arbitration has been declined. A number of the arbitrators have left comments here that you may be interested in taking a look at. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! Hello! Mziboy, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda. 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Mziboy. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page. Message added 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. SarahStierch (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Ken Sibanda article for creation Hello Mziboy, I found no problem with the article and there are now 6 items on the Contents list. Good luck for when it is reviewed again! Thomas85753 15:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Your recent edits Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Reported at WP:ANI I've reported you at WP:ANI for continuously removing the AfD tag. At Ken Sibanda. --Altfish80 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) And I've locked the article so you have to stop. Please understand that an AfD isn't an abuse of process - if you want to discuss the potential deletion, you must do it at the AfD page. The note about the AfD page must remain on the article, so that interested editors will know the AfD is underway. Removing the note doesn't end the discussion, and wouldn't prevent the deletion, anyhow. WilyD 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Removal of AFD template Do not remove the AFD template at Ken Sibanda again. That is disruptive and it will not change the fact that the article is listed at AFD. It allows people who come to the article that it is listed and they can then express their opinion about the article. If you continue you can be blocked from editing. GB fan 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Your recent edits Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Reporting users Please list users at WP:AIV if you wish to report them for vandalism, rather than creating articles. Administrators regularly check AIV but are unlikely to see an article you post. CtP (t • c) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Also, please be aware that removal of an AfD template from an article while the discussion is ongoing is a violation of policy. If you wish to open a case about abuse of multiple accounts rather than vandalism, do it at WP:SPI. CtP (t • c) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, in fact it is you who has been violating Wikipedia policy. Creating a page to attack another user and repeatedly removing a articles for deletion template are both the sort of things that regularly result in the user responsible being blocked. You are obviously far to personally involved with seeing this article on Wikipedia, to the point where you are taking things way too personally and attacking anyone who suggests the article subject may not meet the notability guideline. Since the nomination is not personal, there is no cause for you to take it personally. Not every published author is notable enough to have an article here, the purpose of the deletion discussion is to determine if this particular author is. If you continue making false reports and innapropriate pages I'm afraid you will end up being blocked, and that is not what anyone wants. Please calm down and try to understand that this is not an attack on you or an attack on Mr. Sibanda. It is merely a content discussion of a type that happens literally dozens of times every day here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Look, I protected the article, rather than blocked you, to allow you to participate in the deletion discussion, and give you a chance to understand that you need to work together with other editors. Please don't make me regret that choice. Attacking other editors will only hurt your case. WilyD 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) August 2012 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at SOCKMASTER (Fluffernutter), you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) MziBoy, consider this your very last warning on this subject. Do not create any more such pages or you will be blocked. If you believe you have a legitimate socking issue to report, file at sockpuppet investigations and your report will be reviewed. surely you canunderstand that we don't create actual encyclopedi articles for internal processes? Any page like that will have the " Wikipedia:" prefix on it, such as the deletion discussion that has so upset you does. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I think this note from Courcelles basically says that Altfish80 and Fluffernutter are not the same person. GB fan 17:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse if various Wikipedia venues for spreading accusations against other Wikipedia editors, without providing any evidence. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 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). Mziboy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: It is against wikipedia policy to use a sock account to request the deletion of a page -- Altfish80 was never investigated Mziboy (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: How many messages do you see, right on this page, explaining what you were doing wrong and that you might be blocked if you kept it up? Not only that, but you yourself hve had your own sockpuppet investigation. So how is that even after all these notices you just kept doing what you were doing and not following the proper channels for a sock investigation? Combine that with all the other disruptive nonsense and blatant forum shopping you engaged in today and 24 hour is but a slap on the wrist. Don't expect to get off so easy next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 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. If you believe you have a genuine grievance against another editor, you should present it at the appropriate venue, with evidence. You should not post your accusations all over the place - at ANI, at other people's talk pages, in newly-created encyclopedia articles. You must also not edit-war to remove their comments at AfD or their tags on AfD-nominated articles, or make unsupported (and quite ridiculous) accusations as to who you think someone's sock might be. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The use of an alternate account to avoid harassment, provided it is stated that it's an alternate account (it was) and the alternate account is not used to abuse process (it wasn't) is a legitimate use of an alternate account. Given your history in this matter the concern of harassment is a valid one. Mziboy, let's make this very clear: continuation of the behavior you have indulged in in your time on Wikipeida so far will result in an indefinite block. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I had wondered how one could avoid harassment with an alternate account, if one had to state it publicly. Apparently one does not have to state it publicly, but only to fully disclose to the arbcom. (Which was done, 20 minutes before Mziboy posted his unblock request, though he may not have seen it.[2]) That makes total sense. So if Altfish80 were to try to abuse it, he would be hooked immediately. Mziboy can rest easy on that point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) No, one doesn't have to fully disclose alternate accounts to the Arbcom. One can have an alternate account with disclosing it, as long as one doesn't use it for some improper purpose, such as evading a block or creating the illusion of consensus where none exists (e.g., !voting with multiple accounts in the same deletion discussion). Altfish80's decision to inform a trusted third party was a voluntary act of reassurance that no improper use was taking place. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Good point. In any case, he did inform the arbcom and they checked it out, so Mzi's complaint about sockpuppetry is rendered moot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Proposal for site ban This is to notify you that at WP:ANI#Continued removal of AfD template I have proposed a site ban for you based on your evident inability to edit collaboratively. JohnCD (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Your block has expired, but at the monent there is unanimous agreement that you shold be banned. If you have anything to say in your defense (not attacking others mind you, but explaining your own behavior) now would be the time. Personally I would encourage you to consider the standard offer, it is probably your only hope at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ken Sibanda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Colonial, Shona and Xhosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Black science fiction shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Banned

Given your baffling decision to edit war when you knew banning you was already supported almost unanimously, I am blocking you indefinitely. This should be considered a community-imposed ban and therefore may only be overturned by community discussion. If you wish to be allowed to return to editing here at some point I strongly suggest you follow the terms of the standard offer. You may think there is a conspiracy against you, but in point of fact you have gotten away with a lot more than many users before being kicked out. I sincerely hope you are able to see that you have nothing to blame but your own poor decisions and refusal to listen to all the advice that has been given you and that you will be able to one day return as a productive editor, but for the moment your continued presence on this website is not welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice

This discussion on WP:ANI concerns you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda, 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) 02:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)