User talk:Werehog7

Welcome!

Hello, Werehog7, 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!

Advertising[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renard Queenston[edit]

I looked at the Google hits. There are lots of them, but which ones are reliable and demonstrate notability? --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess his official website is reliable, and Renard Queenston could demonstrate notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werehog7 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid not - they both contravene Wikipedia:BLPSPS#Avoid_self-published_sources. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifur isn't self-published, and his website can be an external link. Werehog7 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifur isn't reliable. We need multiple, non trivial references to a person in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. We currently have none for him. If he's notable, he must surely have been mentioned in a non-trivial manner in a RS, like a newspaper, book or journal. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chocolate gravy[edit]

The article Chocolate gravy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Some info already covered at Gravy. Hasn't received enough coverage to justify a separate article.

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. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to create malicious redirects, as you did with Vlad the Impaler, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because myour 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (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).

Werehog7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was a good user up until my vandalism attack, which I now highly regret. If I'm given some rope I wish to be able to contribute to this project again. My actions were a long time ago, and now I'm a college student I've realised even more that I can't just do this sort of thing to a website read by thousands of people like me every day. In my short time before the block, I constructively created the chocolate gravy article. I hope this shows my good faith and wish to once again help build Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2013 (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.

If possible, I'd like the blocking admin, User:Reaper Eternal to review this unblock request. Thanks. Werehog7 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Have you edited Wikipedia either anonymously or with a userid since your block was enacted? By editing I mean "fixed a comma", "added a quotation mark", or anything that required you to click "save page" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You'll also want to address the deleted massive WP:BLP violation that truly disparaged a subject without any references whatsoever - that alone could lead to a decline of this unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a single anonymous edit on VY Canis Majoris, which was reverting vandalism that I noticed while writing an essay on it. If that BLP violation you're referring to is Renard Queenston, I now understand that just because I like an unknown musician it doesn't mean I need to write a Wikipedia article on them. Werehog7 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..I didn't even look at that one, I was thinking of Kci Baker. You need to carefully explain that one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't really justify that one. Pure vandalism. Kci is a schoolfriend of mine and we sat down together and thought it would be funny if there was an article about him being a serial killer. I now understand how bad adding false information to Wikipedia is. Especially after failing a test after taking information that had been altered in bad faith. Werehog7 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can somebody leave a note on Reaper Eternal's talk page saying that I am requesting him to look over my unblock appeal. Werehog7 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper has no need to review it ... any of us passing unblock review admins can. If we need to chat with Reaper, we'll do so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this request, and there are some things that concern me. Please wait a bit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, this account was

Confirmed as Wagner. Bwilkins, I guess he was wondering if I would notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]