User talk:Doctorwhogeak

Speedy deletion nomination of Doctorwhogeak[edit]

Hello Doctorwhogeak,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Doctorwhogeak for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JamKaftan (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Doctorwhogeak, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. --I am Kethrus ^{Talk to me!} 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from both your edits here, and your website elsewhere, that there are two people behind this account. This will not do.

At Wikipedia we require that every account be controlled by only one person for legal and other reasons. We could block this account right away for violating this rule; however you can avoid such a fate if you clearly state which one of you will control this account and that the other will open another account, within a reasonable time (like a day or so). If not, this account will be blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Laura Haddock. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Laura Haddock was changed by Doctorwhogeak (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.869913 on 2014-11-06T19:47:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Dan Clark with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page maliciously. --I am Kethrus ^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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. Mfield (Oi!) 20:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]