User talk:Peteerh

Hello, Peteerh! talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 76.65.128.43 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply ] Getting Started Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Reliable sources Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs Talk pages User scripts

Hello, Peteerh, and

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rebecca Wentworth 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/Rebecca Wentworth 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 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 template from the top of the article. Egeymi (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright and

]

Jamie Ewing

The article

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

The article Maggie Barnes (Dallas) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N

- no mention of notability; nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

)

Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas)

The article

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

]

Katherine Wentworth

The article

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jamie Ewing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Southfork

Maggie Barnes (Dallas) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sarah Cunningham

Mark Graison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to John Beck

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your

]

Nomination of

Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas) 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 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 template from the top of the article. Egeymi (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free media (File:300px-Aunt.jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Katherine Wentworth

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

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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Ewing

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

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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Victoriaprincipal2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove

t • c »  21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

January 2013

Hello, I'm

Jamie Ewing that seemed to be a test. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page

. Thank you. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at

Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

. Thank you. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cally Harper Ewing. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at

Jamie Ewing, you may be blocked from editing

without further notice. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cally Harper Ewing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a media file with false or missing copyright or source information, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Infobox soap character 2/doc, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Please do not remove

t • c »  23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  —Darkwind (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 January

Hello, I'm 76.65.128.43. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Valene Ewing because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not make nonsense additions such as a birthdate of "111" as you did with this edit -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bobby Ewing. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please don't vandalously change Bobby Ewing into JR Ewing and back again, and hide it into the edit history as you did with these edits:[1][2] -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your

Rebecca Barnes, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not add nonsense to articles as you did with this edit [3] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your last warning. The next time you

Rebecca Barnes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not remove references as you did with this edit [4] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your last warning. The next time you

Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bobby Ewing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ann Ewing (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) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=I edited too much and I created another account, I was a fool, and I'm really sorry, does not occur more than once! You can unblock me? Thanks!}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui 雲‍水 10:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Priscillapointer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

user:Peter9709

Are you the same person as Peter9709 (talk · contribs) ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for attempting to evade your previous block by continuing to edit as Peter9709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=I edited too much and I created another account, I was a fool, and I'm really sorry, does not occur more than once! You can unblock me? Thanks!}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Sandstein  21:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I edited too much and I created another account, I was a fool, and I'm really sorry, does not occur more than once! You can unblock me? Thanks!

Decline reason:

You have been blocked several times for disruptive editing and then tried to evade your block. I see no evidence in your unblock request that your behavior will change. With that understanding, I think Sandstein's one-month block is more than appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:31, 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.

View from 65.92.180.137 (talk) Peteerh is still in the 2-week block period for disruptive editing. Peteerh was also blocked for disruptive editing prior to the 2-week block, so this is the third block (two concurrent blocks: 1st-disruptive (2wk), 2nd-block evasion (1mo) ). I don't think a lifting of the block is appropriate. At the very least, I think he should serve out the 2-week period for disruptive editing he got after repeating the behavior he got for his initial 36-hour block. Until this block, he's never responded to any of the warning, or participate in the AFD that he repeatedly removed from the article he created. Lack of prior participatory actions and block evasion with a second account would make it seem that keeping at the least, the 2week block in place as a good idea. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to appear dismissive, but as admins we can decide on the best procedure without additional guidance. Thank you. --

^"talk" 11:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, no problem. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Pam Ewing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rain the 1 01:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefintiely

I have blocked your account until such time as you agree to use the consensus-based process for requesting page moves rather than repeatedly moving pages despite the objections of other editors and getting into move wars, which are extremely disruptive. If or when you are ready to use the proper process, add {{unblock}} below this message, using the "reason" field to convince us that unblocking you would not lead to further disruption. Be aware that if you evade this block by crating another account, your edits will be removed on sight and your chances of being unblocked on this account will be drastically reduced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 7 April 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Good afternoon! I'm ready to use the proper process, I was a fool, and I'm really sorry, does not occur more than once! I apologize for the inconveniences! Thank you for listening and I hope you'll unblock me!

Decline reason:

"I was a fool, and I'm really sorry, does not occur more than once!". I think I've seen that somewhere before. Try coming up with a good reason why we should trust you. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 16 April 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.