Polegåarden

.

Spock Chalk moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Spock Chalk, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spock Chalk (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spock Chalk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Spock Chalk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Polegåarden! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Spock Chalk

Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Spock Chalk. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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 deleted 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. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Blah blah blah shut up I dont care --Polegåarden (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:RoanokeVirginia, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. KylieTastic (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spencer^T•C 12:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to request to be unblocked. Yes, I did troll and cause upset from this account previously, but this was because I was frustrated and upset over things in my personal life. I apologize for that and I promise not to do that again.

I want to start contributing positively to Wikipedia like I did before. I say this in good faith. What action can I take to get this account unblocked? I promise to follow any constructive actions that will lead my account to being unblocked. Please, this means a lot to me. Again I am sorry for any previous disruption. Thank you. Polegåarden (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate and confirm that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Reading our guide to improving articles.
• Picking any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.

Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

• 1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}}),
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]),
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]),
     • and do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include any citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking using {{unblock}} and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will hopefully improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Roffey Road Halt railway station

Roffey Road Halt is a now disused station on the Arun Valley Line in Wimlands, Faygate, West Sussex, England and was the second station north from Horsham on the stretch to Crawley. It occupied a rural setting situated at Newhouse Farm and opened on 1 June 1907 on the same day as as Lyons Crossing Halt, although it became known as Ifield Halt later that year.

It was one of a series of unstaffed intermediate halts set up by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, to be worked by rail motor trains. It was temporarily out of use between January 1917 and May 1920. The anticipated housing growth did not occur and it closed on 3rd January 1937. Automatic half barriers replaced the gates in 1965, and the associated railway cottages were demolished in 1972. The only visible signs of its existence are a number of concrete posts that supported the platforms.

It is likely that the site and associated land next to the old station will be developed in the 2020s. A large housing estate of 2700 houses and a new park and ride railway station at this site have been approved, potentially reviving the notion of a railway station in the Wimlands area. Polegåarden (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I followed the above instructions to be unblocked by suggesting an edit to the above article. Polegåarden (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You definitely did not. You didn't copy the content appropriately, you didn't cite where you copied it from, and none of your changes were cited. Yamla (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Roffey Road Halt railway station

Roffey Road Halt is a now disused station on the Arun Valley Line in Wimlands, Faygate, West Sussex, England and was the second station north from Horsham on the stretch to Crawley. It occupied a rural setting situated at Newhouse Farm and opened on 1 June 1907 on the same day as as Lyons Crossing Halt, although it became known as Ifield Halt later that year.

It was one of a series of unstaffed intermediate halts set up by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, to be worked by rail motor trains. It was temporarily out of use between January 1917 and May 1920. The anticipated housing growth did not occur and it closed on 3rd January 1937. Automatic half barriers replaced the gates in 1965, and the associated railway cottages were demolished in 1972. The only visible signs of its existence are a number of concrete posts that supported the platforms.

It is likely that the site and associated land next to the old station will be developed in the 2020s. A large housing estate of 2700 houses and a new park and ride railway station at this site have been approved, potentially reviving the notion of a railway station in the Wimlands area.

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I have cited, added References and copied article to the instructions to the best of my knowledge. If I have done something incorrect, please teach me how I can fix this. I really want my account back. Thank you. Polegåarden (talk) 5:59 pm, 7 November 2023, Tuesday (2 months, 3 days ago) (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Persistence pays off! Welcome back, your account is now unblocked. Please remember that your block will always be visible in your account logs and will be taken into account for any future misdemeanours - especially if they relate to creating hoax content again - so please stay constructive and collegiate. Happy editing! WaggersTALK 08:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)