User talk:Pantsgobyebye

Speedy deletion of Unknown kid reporters[edit]

A tag has been placed on Unknown kid reporters, 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, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. You look better naked (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Geraldine Ferraro, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Per this edit Ros0709 (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Scholastic News Kids Press Corps. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Per these edits Ros0709 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten to vandalize articles if nobody expands the Scholastic News Kids Press Corps article. Doing so will not get people to help, but instead will get your account blocked from Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Gogo Dodo. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. LAA Fan 18:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have not been disruptuve.

Decline reason:

Oh, you're right, this [1] isn't disruptive at all. No. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Here is why I will be unblocked:1. I didn't sexually horass Alison. I just wanted to know if I ever wanted to date her. 2: You look better naked is an unnaceptable username. 3: I'm not being disruptive. I demand that you unblock me!

Decline reason:

Not a convincing reason to unblock. Continued disruption can lead to the protection of this talk page and/or an extension of your original block. — Acalamari 16:49, 2 September 2008 (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.

Latest disruptive editing leading to block[edit]

Indefinite blocking[edit]

It would be reasonable for me to block you indefinitely. In fact, I've already gotten a request to lengthen your block, and if I made this block indefinite, I would be acting within the rules. I can't find any evidence that your presence at Wikipedia is likely to do anything that would make the encyclopedia better, So, consider this your opportunity to decide whether you're interested in helping write an encyclopedia. If, when your block expires, you make yourself useful, then I'll refrain from blocking you indefinitely. But if you continue editing disruptively, I'll hit the indef block button. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an indef block, as I thought you already were. Pants, I'd suggest following the steps listed out in {{2nd chance}}. Your actions so far have been less than stellar, however we may be willing to overlook that somewhat if you can show that you do intend to contribute here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I think I may I have been accidentally blocked indefineltly. This was very rude and I demand i be unblocked. You really need to quit making mistakes like this.

Decline reason:

No, there was no mistake; checkuser evidence in this case is precise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 6 September 2008 (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.