64.12.116.71

April 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bob Shaheen, 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. Consensus is determined through discussion. If you have a problem with the current phrasing of the article, feel free to open a discusson on the article's talk page. If you continue to remove the sourced content without discussion, your edits will be considered disruptive and may result in your IP being blocked, and/or article protection. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Bob Shaheen, you may be blocked from editing. The Wikipedia community relies on the bold, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) for article evolution. You seem to be keen on asserting your POV in the above named article, but seem either unaware or disinterested in participating in the discussion aspect of BRD. Please use the article's talk page to explain your rationale for re-inserting the content you are attempting to re-insert. Otherwise, your edits will be considered disruptive, and will be reverted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bob Shaheen. Edit-warring, unexplained removal of sourced content, and addition of unsourced content. Talk page discussion has been open for a few days. Please participate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bob Shaheen. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Nomination of Charleston City Paper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charleston City Paper 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/Charleston City Paper 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gagliardi Trophy

The article Gagliardi Trophy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not sure if this is notable, most sources I find only reports on finalists and little on the trophy itself. If someone can find good sources that satisfy the notability policy it's great, but if not this article should not be here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Bjelleklang - talk 18:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

---