User talk:Britishpatrioticindividual

Welcome!

Hello, Britishpatrioticindividual, 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, such as Peter H. Rogers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! E. Fokker (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peter H. Rogers

The article Peter H. Rogers 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. E. Fokker (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British Gazette

See Talk:British Gazette Skuld (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising, as you did at British Gazette. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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. Sandstein 19:31, 15 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is no advertising. The British Gazette domain name exists and is a blog – a public newsletter. There is no commercial aspect here. It is therefore totally justifiable to have this blog described on the Wikipedia article about the British Gazette. This is you and the other party discriminating against the contents of a blog. Britishpatrioticindividual (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To answer my own question below after investigating - nothing whatsoever. To be unblocked, you need to understand and accept that your own blog does not belong in an article whose only connection is the same name -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (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.

What has that blog has got to do with the 1926 newspaper? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

How about this: A separate – new - neutral article is written about the British Gazette entitled British Gazette and then set up a disambiguation page to distinguish between the two – the blog and the newspaper. Britishpatrioticindividual (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your blog does not demonstrate sufficient notability at this time to warrant an article Jac16888 ^Talk 13:19, 16 May 2011 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

This is not the case. The British Gazette blog is a notable blog in Eurosceptic circles. You seem to be moving the goalposts. On the basis that one writes about others not oneself, I undertake not to write an article about the British Gazette as it is my blog. If others are so minded to do so is their choice not mine. Therefore since I will undertake not to write about myself which was one of the original objections – lift the block. Britishpatrioticindividual (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are unblocked under the condition that you do not write about yourself, your blog or anything else about which you have a conflict of interest, and that you edit only while logged into this user account, not anonymously (to ensure you comply with the first condition). Sandstein 20:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what editing would you be doing, if unblocked? Peridon (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I have done in the past – mainly anonymously – correcting typos, grammatical errors I see from time to time. Also inserting Imperial measures where Metric measures are displayed – if appropriate.

Fred Goodwin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fred Goodwin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]