User talk:RaymondBrogan

Welcome![edit]

Hello, RaymondBrogan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to Ford Racing because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LEDequip inc.[edit]

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 LEDequip inc. 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 credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hitro talk 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:RHaworth. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. In veritas (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I am being personally attacked by 1 or more moderators going into my sandbox and constantly deleting not 1 but all article I attempt to write or edit within the encyclopedia, thus the $1,100 paypal donation being reversed. Now at this moment I have been put on block because I wrote RHaworth requesting he stop acting like a god of wikipedia, asking why he is going into my sandbox deleting articles before I can finish or send for review and that I would post Wikipedia's reply on my blogs, vlogs and twitter. So before I do, I examined that this is probably a moderator have a personal grudge or has finally gotten a god complex from all the moderator power and he himself is violating the rules and other users as well. RaymondBrogan Second thought: My yearly contributions or donations will cease. I will post to my viewers in blog, vlog and youtube abouot last years anonymous donation in excess of $900 and my nonanonymous donation of $1 - because I don't like to be known for donations and this years anonymous, which has been confirmed as reversed, in excess of, well, alot! I also will display the actions taken by moderators deleting my sandboxes and today, after contacting one and asking why, wasn't given a reason, but another moderator just up and plays god too and bans or whatever you wish to call it. My money can go to the bums, at least they would appreciate it over beggars of an encyclopediaRaymondBrogan (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Almost all of this unblock request deals with your donations to Wikipedia which are unrelated to the block. There's very little which actually addresses the block itself, except that you believe you are being personally attacked and that RHaworth, who didn't block you, is acting like a god. As I can't see you addressing your block directly, I'm going to decline your unblock request on procedural grounds. That is, you are very welcome to request another unblock and myself or (more likely) another admin will be happy to review it. I strongly urge you to address the reason for your block, to refrain from personal attacks, and to focus your request on your own actions rather than those of others. For example, you are blocked for inappropriate contributions. You could explain why this is a mistake, why all of your contributions were appropriate and not, for example, a violation of WP:COI (see for example, [1] or vandalism (see for example, [2]).Yamla (talk) 19:07, 8 December 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.