User talk:Tom Sayle

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, and I'm certain I've learnt to stop doing it.

Decline reason:

This is rather inspecific, so please forgive me if I don't unblock you just now. We frequently get unblock requests that claim they understand when really they just want to get unblocked so they can continue the disruption they were blocked for. What exactly do you understand, and how do you intend to improve if you are unblocked? — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:19, 26 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).

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

Request reason:

I will stop adding false information and hoax pages, and instead create some pages to do with some of the chef profiles on www.bbc.co.uk. Also, if you are not Hersfold reviewing the block, kindly get her to do it.

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. east718 // talk // email // 17:46, 26 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.

{{helpme|Why was it indefinate?}}

Because your account was clearly vandalism-only? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Check this edit as well as these two. Please don't insult me. Thomas Mi chael Wil liam Patr ick Sales 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme|Would I get away with signing as one of my sockpuppets?}}

No Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chef list

Unblock

I've unblocked your account. You're welcome to contribute to the project constructively. Keep in mind that if you go back to creating hoaxes or use multiple accounts maliciously, you'll be blocked again.-Wafulz (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Garrey Dawson

A tag has been placed on Garrey Dawson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Waterden (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tony Singh

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tony Singh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Waterden (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme request

What is the language code for the indian wiki? Also, how can I set an external link to revolve round?

The language code depends on what you mean by Indian. This list might be useful in helping you find what you need. Can you explain what you mean by revolve around, I'm not sure what you want. --Werdan7^{T @} 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrey Dawson

Hello, thank you for your message. I'm pleased to have been of help with the Garrey Dawson article and would be happy to help with others. I see that you have an interest in chefs? Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding the Indian wiki, I imagine this will be the Hindi wiki or the Urdu wiki. Actually, there are, I think, quite a number of languages spoken in India so there may be other wikis too.

Proposed deletion of Elisha Carter

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elisha Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NVO (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

{{helpme}} Could someone semi-protect my user page, please? Also, the above template right at the top shouldn't be going funny like it has- I distinctly put in a parameter.

I'll ask around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:If you are here

Template:If you are here has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Metros (talk) 14:16, 5 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know why I was blocked because of what seems like one edit, and also how other users get away with similar messages and I don't, which I believe to be discrimination.

Decline reason:

I endorse the block for the reason given. What others may have gotten away with does not matter here. — Sandstein 15:45, 5 October 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.

Okay.

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).

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

Request reason:

It still seems like one edit though.

Decline reason:

Stop this. You're being disruptive. What "other users get away with" has no relevance, and accusing us of "discrimination" isn't going to change anyone's mind. Telling others "don't fuck with me" is not acceptable. – iride scent 15:49, 5 October 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.

{{helpme|I listed one reason in the above unblock, and I got answers for two, which I cannot understand.}}

Huh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:00, 5 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I can see what was wrong, but I do get angry when I try to contribute and my work's immediately written over/deleted.

Decline reason:

If less than 48 hours after you get unblocked you go and make an extreme attack on an other user, abusing your second chance, I see no reason to give you a third chance. Your page has been protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 5 October 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.

Block restored

Your indefinite block has been restored on your account. Telling people to not "fuck with" you, like you did here, plus the combative tone of "your message will be reverted" are not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is clear that you can not be part of a constructive environment because of this attitude. Metros (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

Talkpage protected due to IMO repeated abuse of {{unblock}} template. If anyone feels this unfair I explicitly state that I will not consider it wheel-warring should anyone want to unprotect it. I've deliberately left the most recent unblock request open to allow someone uninvolved to give a "fifth opinion" on the matter. – iride scent 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Andy's subpage

Even before reading the above, it is difficult to see any reason why you would want to use another user's subpage. jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tony Singh (chef) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tony Singh (chef) 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/Tony Singh (chef) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Laun chba ller 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]