Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hollywood Undead, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hollywood Undead was changed by Frozenguild (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-01-21T09:32:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to BrokeNCYDE constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rapider Than Horsepower 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 band or musician, 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 musical topics.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Rapider Than Horsepower, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. triwbe (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to BrokeNCYDE, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: BrokeNCYDE was changed by Frozenguild (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-02-04T06:54:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mental Illness in Australia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:OR essay - non-encylopedic.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Triwbe (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Mental Illness in Australia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental Illness in Australia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Triwbe (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Dehydration reaction. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SpinningSpark 14:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brønsted–Lowry acid-base theory, you will be blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Two-dimensional gas. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post on my talk page.

• Perhaps you should READ people's edit summary before you go and revert. And to 122.200.166.113, past edits are irrelevant, this is a genuine edit.--Frozenguild (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your description for deletion of an entire section made no sence to me(your reason given didn't make sense) perhaps you should have put unsourced as your reason rather then original research? what does that mean? and when looking at your talk page, it seems you have been warned numerous times for vandalism in the past so excuse me if i felt that your deletion of that section was not correct, and rather then delete it, you should have tried to rewrite it and source it, that is just my opinon and what i would have done......--Ltshears (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont know what it means. LOOK IT UP. Do you think I'm making this up?

No, i do not think you are making it up, that is not what said.. I simply said that i didn't know what that meant.. I did not restore the section to cause an argument, i simply felt that it was not appropriate to delete the whole section. If i was wrong in restoring it, then my appoligies, but i am not going to fight with you over it. . If you would have come to me and nicely asked why i undid your deletion, I would have nicely explained to you my reason and this could have been resolved without conflict., but i took offense to the way you posted on my talk page and think it was very mean actually --Ltshears (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" (see WP:OR). Also my past edits have nothing to do with this. It'l go a long way if you actually look at the edits in question rather than previous ones.--Frozenguild (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are vandal, but at first glance of your talk page, it looked like you had been warned in the past so yes, i assumed that you were a vandal, and i was wrong to do so. --Ltshears (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had nothing to do with this article.--Grahame (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for vandalism for 72 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.Infrogmation (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting afd notices on user's talk pages about articles they never actually edited is quite inappropriate. Please edit responsibly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It wasn't intended as vandalism. The article has very few established editors and I thought that noone would really comment on the AFD notice, thats why I left messages on the talk pages of prominent users so that they can give their input on the topic. I have vandalised in the past, but this is not the same

Decline reason:

Given your prior history of vandalism, I think this block is appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:54, 30 May 2009 (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.

{{unblock|The previous edits were almost 3 months ago. Since then I have edited properly. The reason for this block is not justified as I was simply trying to get more people to participate in the process due to the lack of prominent users on that article. In any case, it does not warrant the extremity of a block}} Sandstein  06:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User request granted by blocking admin; hope problem is resolved Request handled by: Infrogmation (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Unblocked, per user request. Note that the template you were adding to user's pages specifically says it for editors who have contributed to the article in question; it looked like you were spamming irrelevent notices.-- Infrogmation (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this user is blocked for. If it is just adding AfD notices to talk pages of uninvolved users, I suggest an unblock. Per WP:AGF, that could well be a good-faith but mistaken attempt at requesting discussion.  Sandstein  06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block was prompted by what looked like spamming of irrelevent notices on user's talk pages added to an apparent history of problem edits by per discussion here . I hope you're right and this was just an honest mistake. Frozenguild, if you're unsure of proper procedures and can't find an answer, feel free to ask. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was seriously done for the purpose of getting people to participate in the AFD. It appears that I am still blocked though...--Frozenguild (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely not currently blocked and I cannot find any autoblocks operating on your account. Try clearing your browser cache. SpinningSpark 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you send me that message. I haven't been involved with editing that article have you checked the history? Hometown Kid (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2009 (ET)

Stop edit my pages Frozenguild, i m verry tired you destroy my work all times !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noeneko (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rapider Than Horsepower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has been in CAT:NN since 2009; I'm amazed that this article has somehow lasted this long; stuff like this is why WP:A7 exists. Very brief coverage in the popmatters source in the article (mostly about another band), and more brief coverage here. Beyond that, everything else is either in unreliable sources or is not significant coverage. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]