User talk:Truthseek77

Welcome!

Hello, Truthseek77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Processing monsters, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Processing monsters[edit]

A tag has been placed on Processing monsters 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 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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Public Smog[edit]

A tag has been placed on Public Smog 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 an organization or company, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

For severe BLP violations. Furthermore, but not essential for blocking, this account is almost surely a sock. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 15 April 2010 (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).

Truthseek77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I understand which edits violated the BLP policy as I didn't properly consider the fact that echoing such pruruient allegations are certainly inappropriate given Wikipedia's guidelines. In hindsight, that they are is completely obvious. I apologize greatly for my error and if you are persuaded by my appeal, I will no longer make any such edits both in terms of its violation of Wikipedia's guidelines as well as its thoughtlessness. As to the allegation that this is a sock, it's not. I'm just a college student participating in the Wikipedia community as part of an assignment for a class who made an inappropriate edit without properly thinking it through. I made this account for the class and don't have another account. That said, I can certainly understand why from the outside it would appear as though I am. Thanks for your time.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, your edits were so egregious that they had to be removed from public view. I can't in good conscience unblock under the circumstances. Blueboy 96 00:41, 1 May 2010 (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.

As I see that you are a college student who made this account for use in a class assignment project, I would highly advise you to take a look at {{second chance}} and apply the suggestions there. If you post a second unblock request after you do some work on the articles you are meant to work on, I'm sure that some administrator will be willing to unblock you. NW (Talk) 00:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Truthseek77/This Is The Public Domain[edit]

User:Truthseek77/This Is The Public Domain, 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/User:Truthseek77/This Is The Public Domain and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Truthseek77/This Is The Public Domain 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. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of This is the Public Domain for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article This is the Public Domain 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/This is the Public Domain 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.

UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]