User talk:Nutzack17

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Nutzack17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

|reason=This was just a good-natured banter, and I have never done anything else.Nutzack17 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)}}

Reviewing admin, please see deleted contributions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Makenzie Walsh (June 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Makenzie Walsh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Makenzie Walsh, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

nearlyevil665 07:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nutzack17! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! nearlyevil665 07:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and has unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. nearlyevil665 07:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Stinky, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sjö (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Pussy

Nutzack17 (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

==

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Nutzack17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this was my first ever offence, and it wasn’t abuse, it was good-natured banter against a good friend of mine.Nutzack17 (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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=this was my first ever offence, and it wasn’t abuse, it was good-natured banter against a good friend of mine.[[User:Nutzack17|Nutzack17]] ([[User talk:Nutzack17#top|talk]]) 07:32, 8 June 2021 (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=this was my first ever offence, and it wasn’t abuse, it was good-natured banter against a good friend of mine.[[User:Nutzack17|Nutzack17]] ([[User talk:Nutzack17#top|talk]]) 07:32, 8 June 2021 (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=this was my first ever offence, and it wasn’t abuse, it was good-natured banter against a good friend of mine.[[User:Nutzack17|Nutzack17]] ([[User talk:Nutzack17#top|talk]]) 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

==

Just please unblock me Nutzack17 (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)