You need todrop the stick with respect to the content deleted perWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NickOrnstein (2nd nomination), or you are likely to end up blocked. To give you a chance to find something more constructive to do on Wikipedia, instead of just blocking you now, I have protected your user page so that you can't edit it. You can leave requests here for reasonable updates, via the usual{{editprotected}} mechanism, but that does not include restoring the deleted content. And if you add the material back to the talk page instead, as you have already tried once, I will remove it and block you. —David Eppstein (talk)18:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are now blocked. The period of the block is indefinite, but that does not have to mean permanent: all you need to do to become unblocked is to express a willingness to abide by the MfD and contribute constructively to article-space Wikipedia content. The usual block method still allows you access to your talk page to request an unblock, but if you use it for anything else that will go away too. —David Eppstein (talk)18:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked temporarily from editing forabuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayrequest an unblock by first reading theguide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Ok, talk page access removed also. —David Eppstein (talk)18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleWalter Gordon (veteran) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Gordon (veteran) 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 notice from the top of the article.Georgia Army VetContribsTalk19:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of longest living dogs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest living dogs 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.No Great Shaker (talk)13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]