User talk:Anders.haugenson

Welcome!

Hello, Anders.haugenson, 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 Theodor Videnberg, 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! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Theodor Videnberg

A tag has been placed on Theodor Videnberg 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 person or group of people, 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 biographies. 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kamy Sepehrnoori

The article Kamy Sepehrnoori 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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Larry Lake

The article Larry Lake 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. Curtis (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carlos Torres-Verdin

The article Carlos Torres-Verdin 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. Julianmh (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gary Pope

The article Gary Pope 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. Eeekster (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Quoc Nguyen

A tag has been placed on Quoc Nguyen 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 person or group of people, 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 biographies. 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 13:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=Status and Advice

Since published work is indicated, as reviewing administrator I do not think it suitable for speedy deletion. I changed it to proposed deletion, for there is no real liklihood it will be the standards for notability as shown in WP:PROF. The most cited paper had been referred to only 13 times, as shown in Scopus. almost all the work is published sypoium papers that have not been cited at all. I would strongly recommend that you ask for deletion of the article yourself; you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading db-author .

As general advice, it is quite unusual that a person in the US or Canadian ranks of Assistant professor has already become such an authority in their field as to meet the standard. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steven Bryant for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Steven Bryant, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Bryant until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mukul Sharma

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

A tag has been placed on Mukul Sharma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Notability

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Airplaneman ✈ 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Russell Johns

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

Thank you.

The article Russell Johns has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Russell Johns, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You appear to be attempting to create articles about many faculty members at UT Austin. Please review the notability guidelines and only create articles for those professors who are notable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. –MuZemike 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this account is used solely as a vehicle for launching attacks against living people via Wikipedia. –MuZemike 22:14, 17 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I have not launched attacks against living people and want you to prove your accusations

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 19:36, 18 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the reason for being blocked and will not continue to cause disruption.

Decline reason:

Yes, that is what you would need to do in order to be unblocked. However, it isn't enough to just copy that from the decline above; you need to actually demonstrate that you understand the specific reason for your block, and explain your specific plan for editing differently in the future. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:39, 19 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have reason to believe that my passwort got hacked and was used by a different person. I have no idea why I got blocked. As soon as an administrator unblocks me I will quickly change my passwort ---anders haugenson

Decline reason:

Per WP:GOTHACKED we will have to leave the account blocked. If you truly wish to edit productively, start a new account. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 19 October 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.

The other person who is currently asking for unblock, User talk: Wikiplayer13, is using the exact same claim. I'd say that we see it in about 40% of all unblock requests, but that's a rough estimate- I haven't actually studied the question scientifically. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the block to prevent the user from further editing this talk page (and prevent wasting more time of other Wikipedians). The user just changed his unblock reason from an unspecific plan to improve his behavior (in the previous unblock request), to blaming it on someone else. I see no indication that this editor is acting in good faith. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]