User talk:2lunden

Copyright violation in Lunden de'leon

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the article Lunden de'leon, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello 2lunden! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Lunden De'Leon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lunden De'Leon

The article Lunden De'Leon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR] or WP:BIO

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. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lunden De'Leon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lunden De'Leon 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/Lunden De'Leon 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. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bias

To whom it may concern: Lunden De’Leon’s Wikipedia page has been up for over ten years now. With that said, ALL guidelines have been followed. What’s the purpose for removal? Please properly do your research because to remove this page would be extremely bias when there are others with less credits who has Wikipedia pages. This can’t be legal. 2lunden (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation you're making. Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable from other published sources and most of the information in the article is not so our policies have definitely not bene followed. We have criteria for whether a subject is worthy of having an article - WP:NACTOR for actors and WP:BIO for people in general. From my research, neither of these criteria appear to be met and therefore we should not have include this article. If you can demonstrate that you have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." or "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." then please do so. That we have had an autobiography for 10 years, when we should not have, is not a justification to keep it. If there are other articles on people with fewer credits then please list them, but again, that is not a reason to keep the article. SmartSE (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, 2lunden, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

1. Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
2. Please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 08:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)