User talk:Gandy24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:06, 6 December 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Gandy24, 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 Gandy's Site, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 14:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gandy's Site

A tag has been placed on Gandy's Site requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 14:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

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 Shakespeare authorship question with this edit, 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your vandalism as an IP, the next edit of this kind will result in a block. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:02, 23 April 2011 (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).

Gandy24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have tried to create an article, which I feel will be a good article, but have found that I was blocked in the past. I see what I did wrong, but that was in the past and I think I was just testing my power as an editor. I will not abuse this in the future and would like to be unblocked so I can write my article. Gandy24 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the contents of this talk page, you are a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, and your only edits have been self-promotion of a non-notable website. I see no indication that an unblock would be beneficial to Wikipedia. Kinu ^t/_c 21:54, 3 December 2011 (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).

Gandy24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not trying to create a self promotional page any more and will not in the future as I see it's against Wikipedia policy. I am trying to create an article of a notable automobile which will be of interest to many. I have looked for one, there isn't one, so I'm going to make it. I see nothing wrong with this request. Gandy24 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to address the sockpuppetry issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2011 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gandy24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I addressed the sock puppet issue in my first request to be unblocked but the reviewer talked about a different issue. Then I addressed that issue in my next appeal which gets rejected, saying I need to address the first issue. This is getting stupid, I've said that I'm not going to do it again. All I want to do is create a notable article. Gandy24 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I addressed the sock puppet issue in my first request to be unblocked but the reviewer talked about a different issue. Then I addressed that issue in my next appeal which gets rejected, saying I need to address the first issue. This is getting stupid, I've said that I'm not going to do it again. All I want to do is create a notable article. [[User:Gandy24|Gandy24]] ([[User talk:Gandy24#top|talk]]) 11:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I addressed the sock puppet issue in my first request to be unblocked but the reviewer talked about a different issue. Then I addressed that issue in my next appeal which gets rejected, saying I need to address the first issue. This is getting stupid, I've said that I'm not going to do it again. All I want to do is create a notable article. [[User:Gandy24|Gandy24]] ([[User talk:Gandy24#top|talk]]) 11:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I addressed the sock puppet issue in my first request to be unblocked but the reviewer talked about a different issue. Then I addressed that issue in my next appeal which gets rejected, saying I need to address the first issue. This is getting stupid, I've said that I'm not going to do it again. All I want to do is create a notable article. [[User:Gandy24|Gandy24]] ([[User talk:Gandy24#top|talk]]) 11:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Your first appeal only appears to me to have addressed the problem with the article you were trying to create - I don't see any mention of your sockpuppetry there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading on what sock puppetry is, I don't think I am one. I did not create the account to violate Wikipedia guidelines, I created the account to create and edit articles. I was just playing around with the power but relalised that it is pointless because of the heavy moderation of Wikipedia. Also, I have definitely not created multiple accounts for this. I have one account which is this one. I would just like to be unblocked to create an article. I will not abuse Wikipedia's guidelines. I do not see any reason why I shouldn't be unblocked. Gandy24 (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sockpuppetry issue relates to your having vandalised Shakespeare authorship question first as an anonymous IP, and then from the account Gandy24 after that had been reverted. Even though the Gandy24 account may have existed prior to that, you were abusively using more than one "identity" to violate Wikipedia's guidelines -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion, whatever the new article you wish to write is, how about you create a draft version of it here, at User talk:Gandy24/Whatever it's called - write it according to the WP:MOS style guidelines, and provide proper reliable sources attesting to its notability, and when you are done tell us about it here so it can be reviewed? (If you choose to try that, just be sure not to add any categories yet, and put the {{Userspace draft}} template at the top while you're working on it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing your unblock

As this unblock is about to become "stale", I wanted to give you some advice that will either allow you to fix this unblock request, or to formulate your next one:

Your website is/was not notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to brag. Don't write about it.
Editing either with 2 accounts, or with one account and anonymously without logging in is a violation of WP:SOCK. Don't do it.
Vandalism is neither funny, nor permitted.
We have youth that are positive editors: feel free to follow in their footsteps.
In order to move forward, read WP:5P; in order to be unblocked, keep the above in mind, read WP:GAB and fix your request in a sincere manner

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 :::I believe the sockpuppetry issue relates to your having vandalised [[Shakespeare authorship question]] first as an anonymous IP, and then from the account Gandy24 after that had been reverted. Even though the Gandy24 account may have existed prior to that, you were abusively using more than one "identity" to violate Wikipedia's guidelines -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 13:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 *Here's a suggestion, whatever the new article you wish to write is, how about you create a draft version of it here, at [[User talk:Gandy24/Whatever it's called]] - write it according to the [[WP:MOS]] style guidelines, and provide proper [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] attesting to its [[WP:N|notability]], and when you are done tell us about it here so it can be reviewed? (If you choose to try that, just be sure not to add any categories yet, and put the {{tl|Userspace draft}} template at the top while you're working on it) -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 13:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
+===Fixing your unblock===
+As this unblock is about to become "stale", I wanted to give you some advice that will either allow you to fix this unblock request, or to formulate your next one:
+* Your website is/was not [[WP:GNG|notable]].  This is an encyclopedia, not a place to brag.  Don't write about it.
+* Editing either with 2 accounts, or with one account ''and'' anonymously without logging in is a violation of [[WP:SOCK]].  Don't do it.
+* [[WP:VAND|Vandalism]] is neither funny, nor permitted.
+* We have youth that are positive editors: feel free to follow in their footsteps.
+* In order to move forward, read [[WP:5P]]; in order to be unblocked, keep the above in mind, read [[WP:GAB]] and fix your request in a sincere manner
+([[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>]]) 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)