User talk:RonnieC8

Welcome!

Hello, RonnieC8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}}Id like to view a deleted article but am unsure how or who to request it from. Regards RonnieC8 (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article[edit]

Hello, RonnieC8. To view a deleted article, you can contact an administrator. This is the list of administrators in case you don't know where to find them. He/She will give you all the instructions to view the requested page. Greetings -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Communist Party of Greece ‎ . Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Philip Elias Saynor, you may be blocked from editing. Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aleka Papariga, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jonathan Strachan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Strachan 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/Jonathan Strachan 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. Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magioladitis (talk) 16:38, 11 March 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).

RonnieC8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have created two pages neither of which are fictional. Whilst I did plagurise the Aberford article it was all factual information which I feel improved the article and had referenced to the website I had copied the info from. I admit I did contribute to a small amount of vandalism RE: Philip Elias Saynor. However this was a private joke between myself and a fellow wikipedian. I had intended to remobve the false information as soon as the wikipedian in question had read it. I appreciate this was wrong and will refrain from such inside jokes in future. In general I think the indefinite ban is unjust and completely unwarranted RonnieC8 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

On the contrary, all your three articles are hoaxes, the checkable "references" do not mention the subjects, and either you or your friend popped up as a "new user" to claim that Jonathan Strachan was "well-referenced". You are clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia, and are simply wasting our time. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 11 March 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.

Nomination of Brent Schoebel for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brent Schoebel 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/Brent Schoebel 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. Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet[edit]

RonnieC8, are you the same person with User:DwightSchrute4? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No although we do live on the same street. What is your problem?