User talk:ScottieOrNothing

James Bell (Australian actor)[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: James Bell (Australian actor). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Bell (Australian actor)[edit]

The article James Bell (Australian actor) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. The-Pope (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. The-Pope (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Victoria Campbell[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Victoria Campbell 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 this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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 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. Mark^Dask 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Annaleise Woods[edit]

The article Annaleise Woods has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Mark^Dask 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to My Spy Family, 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. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Julia O'Connor (actress)[edit]

The article Julia O'Connor (actress) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NACTOR, only known role is a recurring character in a minor TV series

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rymatz (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Justin Kelly. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Justin Kelly, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 117Avenue (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Julia O'Connor (actress) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julia O'Connor (actress) 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/Julia O'Connor (actress) 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. Tassedethe (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Julia O'Connor (actress)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Julia O'Connor (actress), 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 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Paislie Reid[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Paislie Reid 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 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 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. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chelsea Jones[edit]

The article Chelsea Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable teen actress with minor roles in a few series. Maybe she'll be notable one day, but right now, with no significant roles or coverage, it's too early for an article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Annaleise Woods[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Annaleise Woods 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 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 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of James Bell (Australian actor)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Bell (Australian actor) 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 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 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Katie Nazer-Hennings[edit]

The article Katie Nazer-Hennings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER with only one significant role (the other two named roles are evidently not significant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia's articles on the series, which is saying something); the claim that she was nominated for best actress in a teen TV series appears to be totally unfounded. May become notable one day, but it's too early for an article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emmanuelle Bains[edit]

The article Emmanuelle Bains has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One significant role doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

Sorry for the sudden influx of CSD/PROD notices. When creating articles in future, be sure to read WP:ENTERTAINER. This is a specific guide for notability of actors, which helps us determine who is notable enough for a Wikipedia article and will save you the trouble of creating articles that get deleted. Hope it helps! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paislie Reid for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paislie Reid 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/Paislie Reid 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Marcquelle Ward, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Doctors (TV series) and McQueen (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) 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Landon Liboiron. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Landon Liboiron, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 117Avenue (talk)

Valentina Novakovic[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Valentina Novakovic, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://neighbours.com.au/5980.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Valentina Novakovic[edit]

The article Valentina Novakovic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. She is only notable for one role.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JuneGloom Talk 16:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Valentina Novakovic for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Valentina Novakovic 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/Valentina Novakovic 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. - JuneGloom Talk 20:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Amy Wren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Costumer (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) 10:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Landon Liboiron. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding sourcing[edit]

Hello ScottieOrNothing - I came here to point out to you that the sources that you are using do not meet reliable sorcing criteria - this holds especially true for WP:BLPs where sourcing must be extra stringent. I note however that you have already been reminded of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing and BLP policies many many times since you have begun editing. Sites that are user-generated or self-published cannot be used to support statements about living persons, you need to find secondary sources (such as newspapers) that confirm the information you are trying to add. Please do not continue change or add material to BLPs without ensuring they are supported by a reliable source. If you are unsure if a particular source meets WP:RS criteria then ask at the reliable sourcing noticeboard or on the article talk page prior to adding the material. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have again had to partially undo your edit to Lynne Moody as you used a self-published blog as a source for her year of birth. This is not an acceptable source. If you refuse to read WP:RS or cannot understand what constitutes a reliable source after reading the page, you will likely be restricted from editing BLPs altogether until you are able to demonstrate you understand this important set of policies. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continue violations of BLP policy despite multiple warnings. You continue to restore unsourced and poorly sourced material to biography articles despite detailed explanations as to what constitutes a reliable source. At this point it is clear that you are either incapable of abiding by Wikipedia's core policies or do not care to do so. The length of your block is indefinite, that is you will remain blocked until you are able to convince an admin that you understand what a reliable source is and the importance of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. If you would like to 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. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request of unblock.[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was accused of violate biographies of living persons by admin Ponyo, even if I always sourced editings. Anyway, I've never damaged anyone or anything with my editings. I write/edit articles without problems, spelling errors or praise anyone. So, I would like that you appraised my proposal of unblocking me. I really like to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. An example of one of my editing difference:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Diff&diff=current&oldid=497601119

Decline reason:

The link to Meta is broken, and you don't seem to have any edits there at all. Your request has been declined until you explain how the source you used here can be considered even remotely reliable. Also, please don't remove your block message, discussions/warnings that led to block or declined unblock requests. Max Semenik (talk) 10:28, 16 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.

Okay. The sources I've used for that article explicitly show the date of birth of the actress, all of them: http://tvmegasite.net/day/gh/birthdays.shtml, http://www.mahoganycafe.com/lynnemoody.html, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1988-09-11/features/8802220210_1_dolphins-and-whales-performers-love. In that article, the year of birth was already reported, I've just added day and month...but user Ponyo removed it to leave day and month because just one of the sources seems "reliable". But the same user reverted almost all of my editings. If I'm wrong I understand, but I don't think that all of my editings were.

You still don't get it. I asked about reliability. You can't just use any site you've stumbled upon. Max Semenik (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it. Well, the source that blocking user took as reliable is of a journal, and I agree with it, but also the site http://www.mahoganycafe.com/lynnemoody.html seems reliable. Maybe the first (http://tvmegasite.net/day/gh/birthdays.shtml) doesn't because it's a fan site, but it just reported also the year, added to the day and month in the other two sites, that is also at IMDb, so it proves that her birthdate is true.

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I would ask to be unblocked because I know I added unreliable sources to some articles, but I want to say that I have no idea about that and that I like to help and inform with my contributions.

Decline reason:

If you still have "no idea about" reliable vs. unreliable sources, then you're not equipped to edit Wikipedia again yet. It's great that you want to help, but we can't allow you to help until we know you can do it competently. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:17, 29 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.

Looking at your comments above, it appears that you don't yet have the ability to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Because it's very important that the information in Wikipedia be verifiable, I'm reluctant to unblock you while you still lack this important skill. However, I will leave your request open for review. You might find the guidelines to choosing a reliable source to be helpful reading. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be careful next time, I'll prove it. If it won't, you may block me definitely. --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing[reply]

Emailed unblock request[edit]

Hi Scottie. In response to the unblock request you emailed me: I'm afraid that because your email gave no evidence that you understand or have overcome the issues that got you blocked in the first place, I won't be able to unblock you. Any successful unblock request from you will have to detail your understanding of our BLP and reliable sourcing guidelines so that the administrator can judge whether the issues you were blocked for won't happen again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock User: ScottieOrNothing[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I know I often restored articles adding poorly-sourced references, but I was still unexperienced by time. But I don't think to deserve a so longtime block, that lasts by now from almost a year! I created and edited many articles in Wikipedia, and I would pursue to do it. I don't damaged, offended neither accused anyone! Please consider this last request. Thanks. --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing[reply]

Decline reason:

See, here's the problem: you were doing the same thing wrong again and again, and so you were blocked to stop you from doing it anymore. How long you have been blocked is not relevant, what is relevant is whether or not you appear to understand the issues that led to the block better than before. You do not indicate what you have done to correct this problem during the time you have been blocked, and simply saying "I understand it now" is not sufficient. So, I am going to ask you to prove it by following the directions below. Be sure to make edits that reflect an understanding of what is and is not a reliable source:
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 that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick 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:

Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
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]]);
• do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
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;
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."
You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.

Now, edit that content to 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 and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2013 (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.