Sjoerdat13

Transorbital leukotomy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Transorbital leukotomy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. TRIRASH 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Phishing employees

A tag has been placed on Phishing employees, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Phishing employees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phishing employees 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/Phishing employees 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add those links again. There is no need to have a promotional directory of providers, nor is the verbiage encyclopedic in any way. Kuru (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am the original creator of this page, and included these links from the start. I have been monitoring the click through rates over time and many people go from this page straight to the vendors. There are MANY other pages that have links to vendors too. Please revert back to the original where I have the links to the vendors please? Thanks! Stu

As you have continued to spam your COI and promotional links, I have blocked your account for 1 week. Kuru (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2014 (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).

Sjoerdat13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Erm, there must be a confusion. I have not been active since you blocked this account for 1 week, and now on March 4th I get blocked indefinitely for multiple account misuse? You must have confused me or my IP address with some one else? My last contributions were Jan 24th I have not been active since. How come a permanent block earlier this month? Sjoerdat13 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

Decline reason:

We believe that it is you who has confused yourself with someone else, or rather tried to confuse us in that regard. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2014 (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.