Your submission at Articles for creation edit

 
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.

Your submission at Articles for creation edit

 
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.

Your submission at Articles for creation edit

 
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.


Rangers edit

I can understand people being unhappy with the situation that is taking place on the rangers article, however there is no justification for making the sort of changes you did to the Celtic article. Such changes will be reverted and could be seen as vandalism, so it is not worth getting intro trouble over such things. The only way to get the situation sorted with rangers is for consensus to develop on the talk page. Its a case of being patient. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation edit

 
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.

Arsenal F.C. edit

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Arsenal F.C., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

August 2012 edit

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


Progress is being made but it is important the second article is maintained to keep consensus, that article is about the company itself rather than the club so as long as it stays on that sort of focus it should not be too much of a problem. Please dont blank it like that again otherwise it could set progress backwards on the other article. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits edit

  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) 22:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits edit

  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) 02:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

September 2012 edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Celtic F.C.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Blethering Scot 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits edit

  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) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation edit

 
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.

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Celtic F.C., 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. Shadowjams (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Celtic F.C. 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. Furthermore, this article is under a 1RR. You're way past that limit. Please stop adding information that's been reverted by other editors Shadowjams (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Celtic article edit

Just to note that you have been reverted 6 times on the Celtic F.C. article in the last month. All your edits have been POV pushing, and borderline vandalism. I advise you to cease with them now. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

October 2012 edit

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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. Kinu t/c 22:34, 1 October 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).

Robbierangers (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

My account unfortunatly was misused by someone else, this was not me. I will take precautions to make sure this never happens again and I feel i can contribute a lot of reliable information on wikipedia. Thanks Robbierangers (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

If that is indeed the case your account cannot be unblocked as we do not unblock compromised accounts - see WP:GOTHACKED Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:07, 1 October 2012 (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.

 
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).

Robbierangers (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I had accidently left myself logged in on a computer Robbierangers (talk) 12:22 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I see almost no to completely no constructive edits from this account anyway. Max Semenik (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2012 (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.

 
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).

Robbierangers (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I understand why an administrator would have blocked me, but I had accidently left myself logged in on wikipedia and my page was vandalised with an unnapropriate edit on the Celtic F.C talk page. This has never happened on my account before nor will it ever again. Their has been occasions where edits to pages where made by myself and were seen as unconstructive edits with no reliable sources. This is only due to the fact I am still learning how to use Wikipedia and I am now starting to get the just of things. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia and now that I am understanding how to use it and provide reliable sources i believe this would benefit wikipediaRobbierangers (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You have admitted to us that you allowed your account to become compromised; therefore per WP:GOTHACKED and basic principles of network security we will have to leave it blocked. You would be free to start another account as long as you acknowledge there those portions of your edit history here that you would like to lay claim to. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2012 (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.

Thanks I am happy with this :)

Factual accuracy award edit

  Factual Accuracy Award
Keeping wikipedia correct, well done :) Shocking a ban took place :o Robbieranger (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou very much and thanks for the support :) Robbierangers (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soccer Manager (Website) concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soccer Manager (Website), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 14:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rangers (Football Team) concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rangers (Football Team), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 14:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rangers Football Club concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rangers Football Club, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rangers Football Club concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rangers Football Club, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Classic XI (Fifa Football Video Game Club), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SoccerManager.com concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SoccerManager.com, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your article submission Classic XI (Fifa Football Video Game Club) edit

 

Hello Robbierangers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Classic XI (Fifa Football Video Game Club).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Classic XI (Fifa Football Video Game Club)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply