Hello there...

Hello Wikipedia, I hope you're having a fine day. Remember! I HAVE FEELINGS. I am watching this page so don't nag me.

User talk:Liamlalaliam

Proposed deletion of The L.U.V's

The article The L.U.V's has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability per WP:BAND

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. Muhandes (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but do not delete. Liamlalaliam (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not ready for main space. It fails to show notability by providing multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the band, per WP:NBAND. The only independent source provided is a mention in passing on the Providence Phoenix. I thought you were gone so I went for WP:PROD, but if you plan to continue working on it, we can WP:DRAFTIFY instead. If you do not intend to do anything, I will WP:AFD. Muhandes (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other source is the Bandcamp page to which there is a description of the band written by one of the members. theluvs.bandcamp.com Liamlalaliam (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree it is not reliable, self-published, and not independent of the band. We need multiple source which are reliable, not self-published and independent of the band. Muhandes (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I waited for you to answer about the option to WP:DRAFTIFY and an unrelated editor went WP:AFD, forcing our hand. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in fact reliable. It uses the official band description composed by the guitarist. Liamlalaliam (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is reliable in the sense that it reliably describes how the band sees itself, but not in the sense of WP:RS. Either way, it brings us no closer to the requirement of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the band.Without these, the article will be deleted. Neither you nor the anonymous unrelated IPs have edited the article to provide any. Muhandes (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I edited logged out. Liamlalaliam (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a random IP suddenly interested in the L.U.V's. No need to worry in that case. Muhandes (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The L.U.V's for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The L.U.V's 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/The L.U.V's until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Won't Get Banned For THIS

I REFUSE to get banned for this. Bitten87 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unds like not my problem you bum.o

Liamlalaliam (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from de:Andreas Storm to Andreas Storm. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks but I don't know what you want me to do. Liamlalaliam (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect deleted

Please note that I've deleted your recreation of the redirect From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as it was previously deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12#From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dang alrighty Liamlalaliam (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked temporarily from editing for sockpuppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Yamla (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im confused? I work on a shared IP and I am unrelated to other accounts. Liamlalaliam (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock req.

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).

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

Request reason:

I work on a shared IP and I am confused on what happened. I had another account years ago and I forgot the name. Why was I banned? I did not do anything and many of my friends are concerned why their account was banned. One other person I know was vandalising under a account that was something like Please Create Accounts Legally idk who that was. Plecos are cute is my friend btw if u were wondering please review @User:Yamla Liamlalaliam (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:45, 25 April 2025 (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.

Liamlalaliam (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for reply

. Liamlalaliam (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently in a category of users with an unblock request. There are many people waiting, requests are not viewed in any particular order and admins (like other editors) are volenteers. My advice to you is to be patient. If you are worried about how long your request is taking, you may need to make it more convincing. Expressing impatience, on the other hand, is not a good look. Also, since the block is temporary, even if nobody responds, it will lift automatically after 3 months. QwertyForest (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was still banned for no reason and a reason not well elaborated upon. Liamlalaliam (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That decline reason means that a Checkuser (a type of admin) has used non-public information to link you to other accounts. Given that your block is temporary, I recommend just waiting it out. There is a standard offer, but taking it means waiting 6 months. Your block will expire before then anyway. QwertyForest (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]