User talk:WebTV3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:58, 6 May 2012

Please leave a new message.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, WebTV3, 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 Njigtryerbgygy7965689b8tb7bg7tb8tbt8b8q48tt.b/6ju86qm6ny9yhtr6vfbtcdr6x5swzw3z3ww2c3nt4fnhygny8mgh/yj?JYHYKJETYJKKLYU, 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! trunks_ishida (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Njigtryerbgygy7965689b8tb7bg7tb8tbt8b8q48tt.b/6ju86qm6ny9yhtr6vfbtcdr6x5swzw3z3ww2c3nt4fnhygny8mgh/yj?JYHYKJETYJKKLYU

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Njigtryerbgygy7965689b8tb7bg7tb8tbt8b8q48tt.b/6ju86qm6ny9yhtr6vfbtcdr6x5swzw3z3ww2c3nt4fnhygny8mgh/yj?JYHYKJETYJKKLYU, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. trunks_ishida (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that. Go ahead! Delete it! WebTV3 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post to random articles asking why you were blocked

Article talkpages are for discussing articles, not for airing your grievances. In any case, you are not blocked, people are just reverting your edits because they are unconstructive. Further unconstructive edits may, however, find you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Page does not exist

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Luke (Talk) 17:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WebTV3. You have new messages at Lukep913's talk page.
Message added 17:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Luke (Talk) 17:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cartoon Wars (app)

The article Cartoon Wars (app) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unlikely notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Izno (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed about File:Cartoon Wars icon.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Cartoon Wars icon.jpeg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution!Template:Z135 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed about File:Cartoon Wars in Action.jpeg

Hello, WebTV3!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Cartoon Wars in Action.jpeg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again!Template:Z136 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year
	we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of XD Theater

The article XD Theater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. noq (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of XD Theater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XD Theater 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/XD Theater 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cartoon Wars (app) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cartoon Wars (app) 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/Cartoon Wars (app) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this recent edit to Cartoon Wars (app), you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made an external link. Is that a source? Also please merge my XD Theater page to the Triotech Amusement page. An expert of the world known as WebTV3! 21:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Teddy Bear.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Teddy Bear.jpeg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution!Template:Z135 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Teddy Bear.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Teddy Bear.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Sonic the Hedgehog Spinball, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kinaro^{(say hello)} ^{(what's been done)} 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent images

The recent images I made are found on the Road signs in the United States page. Do not worry about copyright and licensing, because they are found on the Google Images site. That goes for you, ImageTaggingBot! An expert of the world known as WebTV3! (talk)

License tagging for File:Detour Sign.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Detour Sign.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.Template:Z134 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WebTV3. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Message added 15:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 15:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Row of bombs, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (It's my user page!) --An expert of the world known as WebTV3! (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:New article

Template:New article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Carlossuarez46 (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:New article

A tag has been placed on Template:New article requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Help:Template, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke! An expert of the world known as WebTV3! (talk)

Your doing jokes like that - esp. to Help pages - will lead you to being wp:blocked. Be warned. Trafford09 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long are the blocks? An expert of the world known as WebTV3! (talk)

It depends on the nature of the violation, & perceived attitude of the offender. An initial block might be 24 hours, with further misbehaviour earning ever-increasing blocks. Alternatively, if there's doubt over an editor's good will, they may be blocked indefinitely or until they show they understand what not to do in future. And any blocks received show up on our records, for all to see (I've kept a clean sheet to date, I'm glad to say). See wp:blocking for more details but, of course, best advice is not to 'joke' but stick to sensible edits! Trafford09 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really can't resist the urge to experiment, an almost-entirely safe way to do so is to edit within your own wp:sandbox. Here's one for you - it's all yours: User:WebTV3/sandbox1. If you use it (put content in it), it'll go from red to blue. Have fun there! Trafford09 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hints

Me again! Nice work on Cedar Park Center (& sandbox1). One tip - please read re when not to use the wp:minor flag, for future reference. Best, Trafford09 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at HBO, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits on List of Mad episodes

It would be very appreciated if you would refrain from personal attacks like this one. That type of behaviour will get you blocked. If you have a problem with the list's current state, then go to the talk page and discuss. Sarujo (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are really annoying, WebTV3. No joking around on Wikipedia and stop putting back your edits when people find them unnecessary. Superghost987 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, If you're going to make damaging edits like the ones you did to the list, then you have no business editing on Wikipedia. If this was experiment then fell free to use the sandbox. Otherwise you will be reported administration and possibly blocked for disruptive editing. Sarujo (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add information regarding a season finale without reliable sources. Sarujo (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced information to the list. There has been no reports of a season finale. What the show is on is a mid-season break. Also the main page is not a reliable source per self. Try and find a reliable source to verify any claims you are making. Otherwise they will be reverted and you may be reported and blocked from editing. If you have a question regarding a possible source, please bring it here. Sarujo (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the link shuffling, as it's adding no real value to the list other than to just edit for edit sake. If you have a concern about the list please feel free to go to the discussion page and state your concerns. Sarujo (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you want to help, but when you make edits like this one, you end doing more damage than help.

In regards to your request, try not worry. The summary will be filled when some editor that has seen the episode comes along and add the information. Sarujo (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your resent edits on Template:Pixar Animation Studios

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Template:Pixar Animation Studios, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Son of Mac"

A page you created, Son of Mac, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is nonsense or gibberish.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please be aware of consensus - Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary. Thank you, Trafford09 (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, you can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences. Trafford09 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor editing

What on earth was this edit going to achieve? Since when has the 19th century historian and politician, Macaulay, been referred to as "Baby Mac"? - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may preempt WebTV3's response, the redirect Baby Mac was created and targetted at the Macaulay article in 2009 by another editor, as a "redirect for convenience".[1] WebTV3 was doubtless trying to be helpful to people looking for the McDonald's product. However, it seems that the redirect would be better aimed directly at the Big Mac article itself, so I have changed the target accordingly. Regards, Several Pending (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cartoon Wars (app) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cartoon Wars (app) 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/Cartoon Wars (app) (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Timeline of the far future does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Trafford09 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries (ESs) - again

Tip of the day...

Please summarize your work using the Edit summary box

If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help other users keep track of what is happening to a page.

If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 255 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes, rm for remove, ce for copy-edit, etc.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Thanks

Thank you for telling me what to do. I will respect you. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, I'm glad you're not scared to use your own or other editors' talk pages - after all, that's what they're here for.

But as for "telling [you] what to do", well I prefer to think I'm too polite for that. I much prefer to think of myself as offering free advice. I hope you take advice when offered? Do you have any advice you'd like to offer to me, in exchange? Just type it here & I'll be sure to thank you too, plus reflect & act accordingly. As for respect, well it's Wikipedia that I respect, as I'm sure we all strive to do. Trafford09 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nõo

I have completed your attempt to nominate the article Nõo for deletion. In future, before nominating another article for deletion, please make sure that A) you have read and understood the advice and guidelines listed at WP:BEFORE, and B) you are able follow the nomination procedure outlined at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, Several Pending (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of 300-399 (disambiguation)

300-399 (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300-399 (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of 300-399 (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:One reference.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! :- ) DCS 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hi. FYI, it's template, not templete! Trafford09 (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying J (1968-2010)

I notice that you have added an {{Rfd}} template to the redirect Flying J (1968-2010). Was this merely a test or did you plan to complete the listing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? --Several Pending (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a plan to complete the listing. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and is that still the plan? --Several Pending (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had decided to do it myself. See WP:RfD#March 21 for more details. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Yum! Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Flying J (1968-2010)

Hello WebTV3, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Flying J (1968-2010), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 22

Please do not remove comments from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 22. You do not get to dictate how the discussion proceeds. Thank you. --05:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion

You have twice placed inapplicable speedy deletion templates on the page Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion. Why have you done so? --Several Pending (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights

Can I have rollback rights? I am willing to find non-essential edits and remove them. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place to ask, and if you think that's what rollback is for, the answer's no. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Superghost987 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Ocean's Eleven (1960 film). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Apollo 15, Solo operations, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to make them subpages instead. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for them to be subpages - they are separate articles. Please do not create any such pagemoves in the future. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Revolution

That's it! I'm listing you as an enemy! The Web of TV3. (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that such a listing is against Wikipedia policies, I hope... this is no reason for an enemy list - you just need to be aware of policies, and discuss controversial edits before you make further errors. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CREATED THOSE RULES. YOU TREAT US USERS LIKE DIRT, AND YOU ARE THE OVERSEER TO THAT. I'M GOING TO TALK TO JIMBO WALES ABOUT THIS. The Web of TV3. (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please do - I'll get the popcorn... this should be amusing.... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You see, Mike, you are so annoying about this wiki. You turned it into a junkyard with all of us users (even other admin) responsible to clear it out, while you just sit and relax. That is why I am starting the "Wikipedia Revolution", and I already told Jimmy. See you in the first battle. The Web of TV3. (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. I stole your popcorn.[reply]

Hi, just saw a posting at Jimmy's page. Would you mind cutting out the SHOUTING, and please no lists of enemies. As for the popcorn, I rather think there is enough for all to share. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've gotten on a huge conflict between me and Mike. If you join my side, I'll have an advantage. That is why there's only enough for one person. That's why I shouted. It's titled the "Wikipedia Revolution". Thank you. The Web of TV3. (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Wikipedia Revolution and even met the author. I don't remember there being much about popcorn in it. I'm sorry to hear that you are in a huge conflict with Wikipedia, but it may not be as big a conflict as you think. I've deleted your list of enemies, please don't recreate it. Would you mind giving an example of an edit you don't agree with and we can then try and explain it or come up with a solution? Ϣere SpielChequers 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution is to start this war. If it is not started, Wikipedia will no longer exist along with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation. WebTV3

WebTV3, please read Wikipedia is not a battleground. We are all in this together; please try to collaborate calmly and with patience. Powers ^T 21:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now, it is due to the Wikipedia Revolution, determining the fate of Wikipedia. If you cancel the war, Wikipedia will cease to exist. WebTV3

Am I the only one who can't tell if this guy is joking? Equazcion ^(talk) 21:27, 7 Apr 2012 (UTC)

IT IS NOT A JOKE. I even told Jimmy. WebTV3 21:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:noreception.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via live help, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430 talk to me 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:WebTV3/Wikipedia Revolution First Battle

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at User:WebTV3/Wikipedia Revolution First Battle

Hi WebTV3, you recently removed a deletion tag from User:WebTV3/Wikipedia Revolution First Battle. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 User talk:SDPatrolBot, 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. Singularity42 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final message: I give up

I surrender, Mike. I surrender.

I finally realized it. I am the one who should be warned. That is why I am permanently leaving Wikipedia. Here is my last message to you:

When it comes to a consensus, it can result in ultimately fatal ways. The same can go for Wikipedia with permanent blocks. Blocks are the suspension of editing the world's best encyclopedia. To be blocked or not be blocked, that is a question that could anyone could answer with "to be blocked". I had thought about it on the date on April 8, 2012 (UTC), and then I realized it. With this war and all others, it can result in permanent effects. That is why I, WebTV3, am permanently vacating Wikipedia.

With my final words written on my wiki-tomb, I am ultimately sorry, Mike. Goodbye forever, Wikipedia. My last message, from me, WebTV3. Don't talk to me.

(Personal attack removed) --MuZemike 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baaaack! WebTV3 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

I will be around for Wikipedia every once in a while as a user. Ghost of WebTV3. Don't talk to me.

oh...

well you know i read your tearful message and you know that caught me, that just made me cry. just wanted to tell you that.--72.160.169.227 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

I've blocked your sockpuppet account WebTV33 (talk · contribs), which appears to have been created for disruption: please confine yourself to a single account. If you continue to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, this account will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. 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. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

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

WebTV3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia, many things to say. My first thing: I had never made a sockpuppet named "WebTV33". Here is the reason why those edits are wrong: A sockpuppet troller must have changed his name to WebTV3, just like mine. It must have triggered a bug, making it acceptable. He then made a false sockpuppet and put all previous threats into absolute terrorism thoughts, blaming on me instead of him. You must have gotten confused, because he possibly changed his name back to his original one, letting him off scot-free. Second: There will never be a second Wikipedia Revolution, because I decided I should just go with the rules. I will get sourced info (speaking of which, how do you do that) from good locations. Third: I don't hate MikeWazowski or Sarujo, I'm just occasionally fired up with them. And fourth: the unnecessary and incorrect edits and comments, I was only trying to help. Thank you, Wikipedia. The real WebTV3. Talk to me. 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. I wasn't even at my house at that time when it was created, so how can that even make sense? P.P.S. This is not a joke. P.P.P.S. I'm not a sockpuppeteer and never will be. The user who created it should be blocked and tagged as one, not me. P.P.P.P.S. Even if you decline it, I will avoid evasion of the blocking and will not create additional accounts, because there is not conflict between the two users above. I would never treat Wikipedia like this.[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on Tiptoey's research I'll unblock and we'll deal with the recent socking on its own: it's not especially hard to spot or deal with. Please see my response below concerning issues with your conduct and interactions with other editors: you can see from the ongoing trolling how tiresome that sort of thing can be. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's possibly the least convincing unblock request I've ever seen. By the way, this account was autoblocked immediately after it was blocked, so it was active at the time of blocking. You were lucky not to be blocked for the first disruptive episode: this time the retirement is permanent. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. Both accounts are very

Unrelated. WebTV3 has only edited from a single very static IP since they started on the project, and the other account geolocates all the way to the other side of the world. I'm inclined to unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 07:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case

Yes both accounts are unrelated because no one was listening to me and so i had to create anther account. And now both have been blocked. So now i have decided to make a new fresh ghost account User:WebTV3new for myself. HEADS UP, I was actually lying, i will start the Wikipedia revolution again and WIN MY BATTLE AGAINST USERS LIKE YOU WHO TREAT US LIKE DIRT FOOL. WebTV3new (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The possible-socks should be blocked permanently since they're expressly troll-only. The original account (USer:WebTV3) should be unblocked since despite the unconvincing unblock rationale, the only reason it was blocked was because of the "socking" which is far from a sure thing now, and WebTV3 hasn't done anything blockable since abandoning his plans for world domination. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:00, 12 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was composing an unblock response when I was interrupted by the latest sock. I see no harm in unblocking this account, although I've asked Tiptoey to try to rule out proxies.

Whoever it is has mastered WebTV3's histrionic style. WebTV3, I strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to other editors, particularly to Mike and Sarujo, and that getting "fired up" isn't a good way forward. As for "how do you get sourced info", you need to look at WP:V and WP:RS for guidance, or ask (calmly and politely) those who have been providing similar information on subjects that interest you. Given the antipodean nature of WebTV33/3new my assumptions appear to be wrong, so I'll unblock: please resist the urge to go off if you encounter adversity. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for the old autoblock: hard to tell if it's been cleared. If you encounter problems, say so here and I'll enlist an checkuser to help out. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a solution to the ghost-sockpuppet-bot problem. (This is called a GPB, or ghost puppet bot). Real WebTV3. Get more on the case against the ghosts, WebTV33 and WebTV3new at the talk page. 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be unblocked? That ghost was not made by me, that was the former WebTV33. Once again, I am unrelated to the three accounts. Real WebTV3. Get more on the case against the ghosts, WebTV33 and WebTV3new at the talk page. 20:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. Other editors are looking at the bad accounts, and we are in general agreement on their nature and what to do about them. Please forget about bots, "ghost puppets" or anything of the sort: you're unblocked, but you have some history of, well, excessive excitement to overcome, which hasn't worked in your favor. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads blocked. Real WebTV3. Get more on the case against the ghosts, WebTV33 and WebTV3new at the talk page. 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get an "autoblocked" message? Also, please scale back your signature to your actual name: it's confusing, and frankly, annoying, and you're pretty much on probation at the moment. Acroterion (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try now: I've scoured out a couple of autoblocks. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it worked. Please stay away from anyone you've badgered in the past, and thanks for changing your signature. Acroterion (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, since you're having trouble paying attention: you're on probation, which means no spurious templates, and no claims concerning your "sockpuppets": that's what led me to block you, and you've given me little confidence that unblocking you is an entirely good idea, even if it was the right thing to do. Stick to the straight and narrow. I've removed the inappropriate material from your userpage: please don't put it back. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was only for historical uses of the sockpuppets. WebTV3 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know about them, and you're confusing people. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WebTV3 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I wonder who's joe jobbing me. If I find out who it really is, that user will be infinitely blocked for all settings, even reading. WebTV3 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "read prevent" block, FYI. All material on Wikipedia is accessible to anyone to read, unless it has been deleted. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible fourth sockpuppet and other things

Here are some reminders if a fourth sockpuppet is made:

Block just the puppet immediately, and prevent it from even READING WP.
Report it to the incidents on the Admin dashboard.

MikeWazowski, I'm sorry I'm not following the rules, which is why I abandoned the revolution. And you sockpuppets (or ghosts, as you call yourself), YOU ARE NOT AN ADMIN. WebTV3 (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Does this edit mean that you were controlling User:WebTV33 and User:WebTV3new? Trivialist (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. WebTV3 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that someone is trying to joe job WebTV3 here. --MuZemike 03:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the general consensus: I've been trying to keep WebTV3 from self-inflicted wounds now that we've been able to look into the disruptive accounts. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turn-On

Hi there. I have reverted your edit to Turn-On because we no longer use the "status" parameter in television infoboxes. If you'll note, the status parameter doesn't even show up in the article so the edit you made is not even visible. Also since the show has ended, we do need an "end date" which you removed. If you have any questions or would like to know what is acceptable in TV infoboxes, please see Template:Infobox television. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Don't remove or "decline" speedy deletion tags for material you created yourself: you can't do that. Leave it for others to decide, and in this case I agree with the nominator and have deleted it. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Yes we can

The only reason why I thought of that is because I couldn't help myself. Next time, I will use the sandbox. WebTV3 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You've been around enough to know that's just plain wrong. You've been given a reprieve and a good bit of help: please don't make me regret it. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adoption

webtv3 heres some good advice for before you have been giving me mixed feeling and i would be glad to ask someone to adopt, kay.--184.157.13.121 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't adopt you but i'm online a lot if you want to ask questions and i'll do what i can. Thanks Jenova20 12:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also stick this on your userpage. Jenova20 12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

webtv3 can you try to be adopted please im not being mean i just want to see what you decide.--184.157.13.121 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes We Can

I moved "Yes we can" to "Yes We Can" because that's how the disambiguated links spell it in their title. Since "Yes we can" redirects to "Yes We Can," there's no need to move the page; anyone searching for either capitalization will end up in the right place. Trivialist (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike

Please leave Mike alone: I make no judgment on the present issue, but for future reference your definition of an edit war is incorrect: see WP:3RR and WP:EW. Please stop jumping in with both feet wherever you see an opportunity to comment on other editors, even if you're doing it with the best of intentions, particularly with editors with whom you've disagreed in the past: excessive enthusiasm is, well, excessive. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Statkit1

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Statkit1. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not signing comments

A user not signing comments is not a blockable offense, and the warning you gave was not necessary. The standard {{uw-tilde}} notice would have been sufficient sufficient.

Please limit yourself to using appropriate standardized user talk messages, and do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, knock it off: if you start threatening editors with policies you've just made up, you can expect your block to be reinstated by me. Not an indef, but a block nonetheless. Acroterion (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebTV3, I appreciate you were trying to make things OK again but this edit wasn't quite the way to go about it. You've removed not only your own comment but another editor's which is not your place to do. The better idea would have been to ~~strike through~~ your initial comments and add a note of explanation and apology. You really shouldn't ever delete or amend another editor's posts except on your own talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double dabble

When removing a {{hangon}} tag, you should give people more than 1 minute to add justification on the talk page before removing it. The article is not vandalism, it is a method for converting between binary and decimal numbers. And it is not gibberish, and the sole author didn't blank it, so all three of the tags that you added were incorrect. While the article is confusing to read, it doesn't fall into any of the deletion categories that you suggested. I recommend being a little more careful with your speedy deletion tagging in the future, and not be so quick on the draw removing hangon on templates, in particular when the reason is given in the edit summary.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who placed a speedy tag should not be removing hangon tags anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:59, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

User warnings

Regarding this warning you posted: First, please use the standardized user talk messages; don't write your own. Second, that user had already been warned about vandalizing the article when it happened, over a week ago, so it was inappropriate for you to give the user a second warning over a week after it happened. It might be best if you not post any more warnings to users until you become more familiar with Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Walter55024

That message on Walter55024's talk page is not a threat to him, it is a warning about his possible final days on the Internet. It is not a bite to a user, it's not a terrorism thought, it's a lesson about editing. Why must I say that? It's not because he's stupid or because he's young or any negative physical or mental thought, but rather his contributions to the World Wide Web. AC, JW, MW, and TRIVIA, this is a warning. You can oppose that thought, or even block me (not indef) if you like, but this is all thanks you for stopping this user. Sorry about the inconvenience. WebTV3 (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No more user warnings from you until you understand what you're doing. In particular, stop taunting blocked users.' You don't appear to be listening to advice. Please pay attention. "Final days on the Internet??" Please focus in article work and avoid playing with warnings. You've been cut a great deal of slack, but Trivialist and I shouldn't have to watch you all the time. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebTV3, were it not that two other experienced editors are watching your contributions and giving you good advice, I would already have blocked you for this silliness. The editor in question has been blocked since Feb 29th this year. To threaten to "block someone from the Internet" is laughable and makes no sense. Please take this as a final warning that I will block you from Wikipedia if you make any more mistakes in warning other editors. As you don't seem to know in advance when you're about to make a mistake (to be fair, who does...) it would be safest if you followed Acroterion's good advice above. Stop placing any user warnings at all, and focus on productive article work. You won't be blocked for good-faith mistakes you make in article work, but after these warnings any further mistakes on user talk pages will not be excused. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Ever since I saw that stop hand image (nvola), I have gotten strange. Next time, I won't make warnings in custom or by template to blocked users (not even notices) until I am an Admin (if I ever become one). I'll try to show some respect. 15:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it. No warnings to anyone, no interactions over user troubles, per direct advice from me, Kim, Trivialist and Equazcion. It's clear that you're not mature enough to be constructive in such situations, and if you violate this restriction you'll be blocked, and not for 24 or 48 hours, but for two weeks or a month or longer. I think you'll be fine in a couple of years once you've matured, and that might eventually be what it takes if you don't pay strict attention to advice from other editors. There is no "try." Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About MW

Mike had recently been blocked by a violation of 3RR for 48 hours and had his rollback rights revoked. Why do that? He was only trying to do the right thing. Those were good faith edits, not edit war edits. I was starting to like him. Please contact me for further notice. WebTV3 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was reverting repeatedly for COI reasons, when that's generally only allowed for cases of clear vandalism. Rollback is granted on the condition that an editor understands when reverts are warranted.

It's been suggested that you keep clear of warning users until you have a better grasp of which actions require warnings, but I'm going to take this a step further and recommend that you focus your attention away from involving yourself in issues of editor behavior entirely, including commenting on whatever sanctions might be in place. It's just not something you're experienced enough to get involved with. Please focus your attention on article content and not policing other editors. We've got that handled. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:50, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

My another account for use User:WebTV3other

Acroterian, Equazcion, Trivialist, Kim Dent-Brown, Muzemike and MikeWazowski please note that i have made my another true legal account User:WebTV3other. Please do not block me now, as i have made to stop those 2 other ghost sockpuppet accounts. As everyone can have more than 1 account i have decided to use both my account for Wikipedia. WebTV3other (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (My another account)[reply]

This doesn't fill me with confidence. You rather seem determined to test the boundaries of the restrictions you've been given. Is there some reason you saw the need to create another account, or was it just for fun? Unless there is some good reason you need a second account, I'm recommending that it be blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:30, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, you should bring confidence. I will use two accounts so that i can edit from both of them. This not for fun, i am serious. I will work from both, please do not block any of my accounts!! WebTV3other (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WebTV3, having multiple accounts is generally frowned upon; please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Unless you have a valid reason for having two accounts, one or both of them will almost certainly be blocked. Trivialist (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for assuming you were behind WebTV3other. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong. You are making it frowned upon. PLEASE do not block any one. Otherwise i will report this matter to the high authorities. I have VALID REASON i will use both my accounts for editing. WebTV3other (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you won't. This has gone on long enough, and you've now been reported for sockpuppetry. Have a day. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be doing this either. I think you've exhausted your chances here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:55, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What valid reason? I see nothing at WP:Multiple Accounts that justify your use of a second account. You claim it is to avoid impersonation, but you are using the other account to edit (see Special:Contributions/WebTV3other), in direct contradiction of WP:DOPPELGANGER. I also note that your other account has already started to accumulate new cautions about problematic edits. I don't know about other editors and admins, but I've run out of good faith here. Singularity42 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's another attempt to Joe job WebTV3 and stalk/harass MikeWazowski. I have blocked the account. --MuZemike 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I probably should've guessed that. Sorry WebTV3. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:17, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

~~Joe jobber found~~
~~The person who joe jobbed me has been found: 59.90.134.181. Block him indef with no talk page rights. WebTV3 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~User warnings~~
Once again, please stop giving user warnings, as you did here, as you have shown that you do not yet understand Wikipedia procedures, and only seem interested in threatening other users for any offense, real or imagined.
Also, it appears you once again used a warning that you created instead of a standard warning, and you forgot to update the signature, because it is dated "8:46 pm, 21 April 2012" instead of April 25, 2012.
Please pay attention to other users' advice, and just focus on articles, or you may find yourself temporarily blocked. Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently editing restrictions don't work either. Now you've exhausted your chances, WebTV3. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:26, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
The user you warned had not edited for nearly 24 hours before your warning, and had received ample timely warnings from other users. You've been clearly told that further mistakes in warning others will lead to a block, so I have blocked you for 48 hours. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.
Just wanted to say thanks and well done for staying away from user talk pages since your block lapsed. It's much better to leave warnings to other editors and I trust you'll continue to do so. Concentrating on useful mainspace edits to articles as you have been is definitely the way forward.! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sockpuppet question~~
~~Are there any friendly sockpuppets that don't vandalize or treat the wiki badly (not alternate accounts)? WebTV3 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~By definition, a sockpuppet is an alternate account. Don't concern yourself with sockpuppets; just use one account. Trivialist (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Don't do this either. I'm not sure why you need to be told so many times but stay away from blocked user talk pages, don't concern yourself with behavioral issues (as you just did above), and stick to article content. I don't know how to make this any clearer. You just don't seem to be getting it. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:25, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)
~~Blocked proxy~~
Re your message on my talk page [User talk:59.90.134.181]: the IP was blocked four days ago. We don't do indefinite blocks on IPs except in rare circumstances. This is a blocked proxy and has been blocked (four days ago) for several months, as is usual for proxies. If you don 't know what a proxy is, you shouldn't be leaving messages on the IP talkpage or making demands on my talkpage. For future reference, it's an anonymous IP that is completely unrelated to the user, intended to hide their identity, that they will never use again. We've known that the person who's been bothering you has been using proxies for some time now: it's how we established that you weren't responsible for the problems they created. As such it's useless to leave messages or to demand that the IP be blocked forever, since it probably belongs to someone on another continent. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least up his block. WebTV3 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~No. It's not "his": it's a proxy. That user will never return to that IP in all likelihood: they'll find another proxy. Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Sorry. WebTV3 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~May 2012~~
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Qqqqq, 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. Thank you.Template:Z44 Cresix (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I created it with a db template. WebTV3 (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So please explain why you created an article with the only purpose to have it deleted? Stop creating inappropriate articles. Cresix (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To protect another recreation. WebTV3 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Stop creating inappropriate articles. Cresix (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Block this user~~
I'm formally suggesting that WebTV3 be blocked. I applaud Acroterion for his patience with this user, as well as everyone else for trying to help him refrain from non-productive behavior, but I think everyone's been patient enough. Most recently we have [2][3][4], which he's been specifically warned against, as well as the above -- creating a page with a speedy-delete tag. Editing restrictions clearly don't seem to be conveying the message. This user is either bent on testing everyone's tolerance or is just incapable of constraining himself to productive edits. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention this, where he just saw fit to edit one of the socks' unblock decline rationales (yes, the decline rationale comment left by the reviewing admin), to censor some profanity. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but not indef. WebTV3 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: [5]. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equazcion: Is this the edit you meant? The link you gave doesn't work. Trivialist (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, sorry about that. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been extended a great deal of slack by myself and others. That page creation was entirely wrong: you're venturing into areas where you clearly have no business. This is compounded by your compulsion to fool around with the sockpuppet impersonator accounts after many warnings not to, which leads me to believe that our good faith is being wasted. I've blocked this account for two weeks, though my judgment tells me that a year or two might be more appropriate. If this behavior recurs after the block is lifted, I'll reblock indefinitely, since I don't think you're sufficiently mature or competent to be able to contribute appropriately. Please consider this a final chance. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly agree with this block. The old adage that [[WP:AGF}]] is not a suicide pact is entirely appropriate here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notice~~

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).
WebTV3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only reason why I created those false pages is to prevent a recreation by a possible fourth puppet or any other user/IP. Plus the edit on 33's talk page: you said that I should never remove an unblock template while a user is blocked. So I undid C1992's edit using the same edit summary, but then was removed again. How? Also, on 3other's talk page, I didn't notice the rule to prevent censorship. Next time, I will use the sandbox. Can you please unblock me? WebTV3 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to admitted disruption, this block is valid. You're not an admin: we have tools to prevent pages from being created if needed, so that excuse is BS. Screwing around on other people's talkpages - again, none of your business (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 6 May 2012 (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).
WebTV3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I'm not an admin without the tools, but I was expecting an admin to do it. I'm sorry about the disruptive edits. WebTV3 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below.

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.

~~Maybe this template will help you understand:~~

~~This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.~~
~~Will it help you understand? WebTV3 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
No. If you wanted a title protected, you should have asked (though I would consider such a request inappropriate, to be honest, a solution looking for a problem). "Oops" isn't a satisfactory excuse: you've done things that you were specifically warned not to do, and you've shown remarkably poor judgment. You've been repeatedly told that you're not doing the right thing, and you've ignored that advice. You need to indicate that you understand that, and stop making excuses. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 559: / Line 559: @@
 {{unblock reviewed | 1=The only reason why I created those false pages is to prevent a recreation by a possible fourth puppet or any other user/IP. Plus the edit on 33's talk page: you said that I should never remove an unblock template while a user is blocked. So I undid C1992's edit using the same edit summary, but then was removed again. How? Also, on 3other's talk page, I didn't notice [[WP:CENSOR|the rule to prevent censorship]]. Next time, I '''''will''''' use the sandbox. Can you please unblock me? [[User:WebTV3|WebTV3]] ([[User talk:WebTV3#top|talk]]) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC) | decline=Due to admitted [[WP:DISRUPT|disruption]], this block is valid.  You're not an admin: we have tools to prevent pages from being created if needed, so that excuse is BS.  Screwing around on other people's talkpages - again, none of your business ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 11:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)}}
-{{unblock|I know I'm not an admin without the tools, but I was expecting an admin to do it. I'm sorry about the disruptive edits. [[User:WebTV3|WebTV3]] ([[User talk:WebTV3#top|talk]]) 20:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)}}
+{{unblock reviewed| 1=I know I'm not an admin without the tools, but I was expecting an admin to do it. I'm sorry about the disruptive edits. [[User:WebTV3|WebTV3]] ([[User talk:WebTV3#top|talk]]) 20:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)| decline= See below.}}
 Maybe this template will help you understand: {{User oops}}