User talk:Hanji31

Nomination of Renate Ackerman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Renate Ackerman 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/Renate Ackerman 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. Specs112 t c 14:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andi Ali

The article Andi Ali has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Specs112 t c 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Andi Ali. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Andi Ali, 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. -- WikHead (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I urge you not to delete my page on Andi Ali. I am still working on his page. If you put his name in google you will see he is quite famous.

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Andi Ali, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. -- WikHead (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as seen in Andi Ali, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- WikHead (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andi Ali for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andi Ali 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/Andi Ali 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. ... discospinster _talk 17:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for continually removing maintenance templates. 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 text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 18:12, 23 June 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).

Hanji31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is unfair to put on a block of my account for the reasons you have given. This is because you kept putting messages on my account when I was working on the Andi Ali page. You should wait until the page is complete before making jugdements. 2) It is also unfair to delete the Andi Ali page. His book is currently number 5 in Aamazon kindle (uk) best seller for discrimination.

Decline reason:

Request does not address the reason for the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 23 June 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 is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Specs112 t c 12:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Renate Ackerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fictitious (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]