User talk:Mbroderick271#May 2021
Hi, you can recreate with independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of [[:Michael Francis Wiley]]
Image:Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{tl|hangon}}
to the top of the page (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. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:The language accuses a living person of being an danger to all around him. That's a violation of our biography of living persons guidelines. The fact that you find his alleged behavior "awesome" is not relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
::The guy fails notability - even if the text as created is true, that just means he's a bad driver with apparent problems in his personal life. Meanwhile, the very existence of this article created problems with libel laws and the like. There is no argument here to retain an article on an alleged bad driver with a courtroom history. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I didn't delete the article "out of hand"; there were two editors involved: one to nominate, then another who examined their nomination and agreed with them. As to the libel issue: read our guidelines on biographies of living persons for the concerns that guided me. (And there is nothing shameful about having a deletion brought to deletion review.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Generativity
Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Generativity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process{{#if: WP:NEO| because of the following concern:|.}}
:WP:NEO
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 {{tl|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. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
February 2009
25px Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:User:Gogo Dodo|, such as the one you made to :User:Gogo Dodo,}} did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
25px Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia{{#if:User talk:Iamawesome800|, as you did to :User talk:Iamawesome800}}. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's my talkpage, thus I can't vandalize it and I can remove any comment I want to.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
=Blocked=
{{unblock reviewed|1=I was blocked because I repeatedly warned a user for eliminating my comments on his talk page that were meant to be part of the process of solving a dispute. I did not realize that users were allowed to edit their own talk pages with complete freedom, even to the extent to try to stifle a continuing dialogue about a particular dispute. I understand that now. But I don't think my warning, which I realize now was inappropriate, should have caused me to be blocked. I was originally distressed that an article I had created was the victim of a notability speedy delete despite the fact that it qualifies under the notability guidelines that the editor who deleted it provided on my page. If my behavior since then has not been exemplary, I certainly apologize but I think established editors seem to think that their track record entitles them to ride roughshod over newer editors which drives away casual visitors from participating in a more substantial way. If you look at my record, I have made numerous substantive contributions to Wikipedia, from brand new articles to smaller edits. Though I am by no means a veteran, I do not vandalize or make trouble mindlessly. And I freely admit that I do not have a expansive grasp of the byzantine rules and regulations of wikipedia.|decline= Not calling people rude names, as you clearly did here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iamawesome800&diff=prev&oldid=268177704] is not a byzantine rule. Its common decency. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{unblock reviewed|1=To be fair, the user who has pressed to have me banned asked me if what he was saying was "to [sic] fast" for me before I ever called him a name. He clearly has a lot more experience with this than me, and still felt it was acceptable to basically call me an idiot for raising questions about an issue that has since been resolved in my favor (see below). Again, I think this is ultimately more about who has a longer history in the community than what is actually a fair resolution of a situation that I admit I could've handled better. If you look at the guy's talk page, or the history of that page, you'll see that he was rude to me first. While that's not an excuse for my behavior, I find it curious that no one has so much as warned him while I'm blocked. And as I said, the initial incident that set me off was resolved in my favor which shows that I wasn't completely offbase at being a little ticked that speedy delete had been used on a page I created.|decline=WP:NOTTHEM — Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)}}