User talk:1776blackpantherMAG

Hello Ronjohn. I noticed you, or another editor created a Requests for Adminship page under your name, and I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. Please note that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets an extremely high bar for potential administrator candidates. That being said, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users, and Wikipedia:Not now, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that request and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are determined to run for adminship despite my advice, you will need to transclude your RfA at WP:RFA by following the instructions at WP:RFA/N. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to listen to wise counsel would not only torpedo this RFA, but any future one. Actually running for RFA when you don't meet even the most minimum of criteria would probably add another 12,000 required edits and at least a year before you could even think of trying again. RFA is not a big deal - but the community is pretty serious about how it selects admins (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Ronjohn, you really have to read WP:NOTNOW. While policy doesn't explicitly say it, you will look pretty bad if you don't.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you put your RfA inside of someone else's RfA, which I've undone. I see other editors above have suggested you might want to wait until you have more experience before you request adminship; I agree with them 100% and hope you will listen to their advice. 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you 24hrs to properly transclude your RFA. If after that it's still non-transcluded, we can readily assume it can be deleted. It's been "in progress" long enough (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to activate your request for adminship, you need to go to this page and place:

{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn}}

under the section that ends:

---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below - -->

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Max Hardberger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wine Guy Talk 10:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Lakin.  Sandstein  17:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on V-Nasty requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. →Στc. 00:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronjohn, you recently removed a deletion tag from V-Nasty. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on BAYTL requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on V-Nasty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V-Nasty 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/V-Nasty (2nd nomination) 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 good 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. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jimmy Henchman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jimmy Henchman has been proposed for deletion because, 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. Bihco (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jimmy Henchman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have closed your RfA early. I hope you don't take this personally, because if you were to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner, you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. Good luck! Bmusician 04:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat unfortunate. WP:NOTNOW is really intended for situations in which an inexperienced editor strays into RFA without knowing what they are getting into. Ronjohn was given ample warning that his RFA had little chance of success but was insistent that it went ahead. I had hoped the RFA would have been allowed to run long enough to make it clear that the intention behind the advice offered was genuine.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both ronjohn and I have asked Bmusician to undo the early close (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have reopened your RfA. Best of luck. Also, please don't use capital letters on my talk page...that can be perceived as shouting... Bmusician 09:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 842 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronjohn. I notice that you requested that your RfA was kept open when it had previously been closed. Tom closed it as it was definitely not going to pass, meaning that keeping it open is disruptive - effectively using the ignore all rules clause which one of Wikipedia's principles. I was in the process of doing exactly the same myself, but got called away from my desk.

This doesn't mean that you will never become an administrator, but I think you'll need to change your attitude a little before you do become one. And even if you don't, there's plenty to do here instead. If you'd like to discuss things further, feel free to give me a shout. Cheers Worm^TT · (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your message on Tom Morris' talk page:

You are being treated the same as anyone else. It is in nobody's interest to keep an RFA open when it is clear it has no chance whatsoever to succeed. The initial WP:NOTNOW was applied prematurely, given your apparent refusal to accept the advice offered by others that it would not succeed. After 23 opposes and no supports, WP:SNOW is clearly in effect. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ronjohn. I'm sorry this has worked out so badly for you. Can I just say, here and now, there was absolutely nothing wrong with you submitting that RfA. Anyone wanting to take that up, can take it up with me. You do not need any "approval" from anyone to run for RfA. However, it was doomed to failure - as a number of editors have told you. These editors have watched many RfAs, and can see general trends. In fact, I've done a lot of research on RfA, which can be found at RfA Reform. When it is clear that something is going to fail, we do stop the process, because there is no good reason to carry it on - which is something that's happened here. Now, we let it run for a while to show it was going to fail, but carrying it on for a week would just be bureaucracy for the sake of it. This would be true for any editor, and I can give you a number of examples if you like.

With regards to the "attitude" comment, (at least in theory) Wikipedia is a community, no one voice is more important than others. It's the points that are made that matter. However, when one voice ignores what the community as a whole is telling them, it causes disruption. That doesn't mean you are wrong, or that you have to lie about your views, but what it does mean is that you have to accept that the rest of the community is saying and give it a rest. I've got your page watchlisted, I'll try to help out if I can. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge, You've been doing some good edits, so a hefty Barnstarr to, you! Gimme a call and we can work on wiki projects as you indicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 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).

1776blackpantherMAG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong I was told by a Wikipedia editor that I could use youtube as a reference here: "Because we don't allow youtube videos as reliable sources, it would only be of use if it was Lola herself saying "I was a stripper". If she was a stripper, there will be a real source out there somewhere. I will say it again, revert yourself immediately--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)" and I did just that with a bit of coatracking, but I didn't know what coatracking was until after, so when another editor changed my edit a bit I left it alone then another editor came by and removed it all together with no explanation or discussion. Bwilkins has been targeting me ever since I put a RFA in. I'm not sure why.[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit-warring. You do not seem to understand what edit-warring is. Please familiarize yourself with WP:Edit warring. No unblock request will be successful if you insist you did nothing wrong despite the clear evidence in the article history that you did. 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 6 April 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.

Sarge, the rest of us have your back. Your rationale speaks to the good in all men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Strong Capital Management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. TheLongTone (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Strong Capital Management, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strong Capital Management 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/Strong Capital Management 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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jimmy Henchman 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/Jimmy Henchman 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. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronjohn, please wait for a consensus before restoring Christopher Jordan Dorner.

As I pointed out to you, under WP:PERP:

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Therefore, any information on Dorner should be placed in the existing 2013 Southern California shootings article, because Dorner is not known for anything outside the shootings, and he is directly relevant to the article.

Furthermore, WP:PERP says the following:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

Dorner's guilt has not been proven by a court of law. He has only been named as the suspect in the shootings. To create an article on him implies that he is guilty before he has had a chance to stand trial.

Now, to address your point about James Eagen Holmes, who has a page despite only being known for his crime.

Firstly, Holmes has been formally charged and ordered to stand trial. Dorner, on the other hand, is currently a fugitive. His guilt has not been proven; for all we know, someone killed him a month ago and took advantage of his emotional state to write up a phony manifesto and carry out a spree killing against the LAPD. I know that sounds like bad fiction (it's straight off the top of my head), but we can't prove that it is not the case. The page on Dorner should not be created until such time as he is committed to stand trial. To create a page beforehand presumes that he is guilty, which is not the way the legal system works - even if the case against Dorner never examines Wikipedia.

Secondly, the current version of Holmes' page weighs in at 41,217kB. In other words, there is more than enough content on that page to justify a split from the 2012 Aurora shootings article. On the other hand, your work on a Dorner page is just 1,210kB. Compared to Holmes, we know nothing almost about Dorner.

Finally, I feel I should inform you that constantly reverting the edits to Christopher Jordan Dorner so that it is its own page (rather than a redirect) is edit-warring, and may get you referred to the adminstrators and possibly blocked from editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) The discussion to gather consensus is here.

2) We cannot create a page for Dorner on the basis that he might be killed before he stands trial. That is a case of trying to predict the future, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

3) There is nothing known about Dorner that cannot go in the article about his alleged crimes.

4) Of course I'm not an admin. I wouldn't be an admin even if they paid me to do it.

In the meantime, I have put in a request for page protection on the Dorner "article". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that you stop editing the page to form an article of its own, and instead go to Talk:Christopher Jordan Dorner to discuss creating a full page there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronjohn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Walk with Me (Rotimi album), does not have enough sources and citations 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Moomoo, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability

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 User:Ronjohn/sandbox 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 User:Ronjohn/sandbox, 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, 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) 13:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronjohn! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to create wiki "shortcut" to a wiki redirect page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Futu Holdings 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/Futu Holdings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leaf Hua Li 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/Leaf Hua Li until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronjohn,

as you may have noticed at WP:ORCP, attempting a RFA right now would be a lost cause. And would likely actually engender some ill will against you. Would you like me to delete the RFA page you created? If you decide to try again after addressing some of the problems described at WP:NOTYET, you can always recreate one in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be polite and yet still be clear. There is a zero percent chance of your RFA passing right now. You don't have 1/10th the minimum expected edit count. Please read the advice in the section below, and the advice in WP:NOTYET. If you try to start it anyway, it will be closed by someone else in a couple of hours, and people will think poorly of you - because your judgement in starting it would be bad - and that opinion could linger for quite a while. That would be a shame, and a waste. So your choices are basically:

1. Start the RFA anyway, and it will tank.
2. Ask an admin to delete it, and then it will be as if you never created it.
3. Ask an admin to move it to your user space, and then you can work on in sometime in the future (to be honest, I'm thinking a minimum of 1-2 years).
4. Continue to not respond, and the MFD will likely result in option 2 or 3.

I'd recommend options 2 or 3 equally, whichever you like better. Please let me know (or any admin, if you prefer dealing with someone else). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having labeled this section as I have, I should go on to say that while there are no firmly laid down requirements, there are a number of expectations held by users here; failing on these will very seriously impede your approval as an admin. You have made only a little over one thousand edits; most editors here expect to see around five thousand manual edits on your record. And your editing rate is roughly on average one edit every three days. Using edit summaries is not mandatory, but certainly is recommended. you only add a summary in about 20% of your edits. It is expected that you will spend some time in admin-related areas, such as AfD, CSD, AIV, etc. I understand that your military duties may leave insufficient time to devote enough to Wikipedia. If this is so perhaps you should delay further application until you have more time to devote to the encyclopedia.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronjohn. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Moomoo Inc., a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronjohn,

An editor tagged this for deletion as an abandoned RFA but I untagged it and thought I'd ask you whether you would like this page deleted. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah delete that shit. Ron John (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronjohn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Moomoo Inc.".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Emmit Till body.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to WebPros (company). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Frost 17:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by CFA was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

C F A 💬 22:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1776blackpantherMAG! Having an article draft 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! C F A 💬 22:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on WebPros requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1776blackpantherMAG. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to WebPros, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:1776blackpantherMAG. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=1776blackpantherMAG|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. C F A 💬 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WebPros 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/WebPros until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Whpq (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]