User talk:EpicFlame

Note: This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads older than 7 days old are automatically archived.

test

?

why'd u clean up my talk page. i worked very hard on creating those articles!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting

What did you mean regarding "aggressive crossposting," as you posted on the IP User talk:64.230.108.240‎ talk page? What is he attempting to do, by creating those articles on his talk page? --LeyteWolfer 06:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, so i'm simply removing that crossposting... But are articles created in talk pages allowed?--Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 06:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. I am just not familiar with the concept. --LeyteWolfer 06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, that user was creating articles in talk pages... So i tought crossposting...--Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

64.230.108.240

Hey, man: just thought I'd let you know that he was blocked and has since been less-than-professional[1] with some other editors (not sure why I got to miss out on his tantrums. ;-) ). --LeyteWolfer 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i have 2 choices: I wonder if i should put a speedy delete or keep its articles...

I would go with regular AfD. I'm not certain they are vanity pieces, but my radar is usually pretty accurate. --LeyteWolfer 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put a AFD... --Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for talk pages

Hi. Did you really mean to put these talk pages[2][3] up for AfD? --Malcolmxl5 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/lovestotorture

User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/lovestotorture, a page you created, 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/User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/lovestotorture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/lovestotorture during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. shoy (^words _words) 05:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/youradouchebag

User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/youradouchebag, a page you created, 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/User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/youradouchebag and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/youradouchebag during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. shoy (^words _words) 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this userbox as an obvious blatant attack. I also noticed that this has been deleted before. I'm going to ask you not to recreate this userbox, as it adds absolutely nothing productive to this project. GlassCobra 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I noticed that you'd recreated the douchebag userbox, I've deleted it again. You do not seem to have any constructive edits at all to this project; for this reason, I've blocked your account indefinitely. GlassCobra 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have these edits been considered un-constructive? --Mark (Mschel) 23:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is generally the norm to give a warning before blocking. --Mark (Mschel) 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am surprised by this. I haven't reviewed all of his edits, but what I have known about him has been positive nd a quick sampling of his recent edits (numbering 10) turned up good solid edits. On the surface, it appears to me that he's being banned for not lockstepping with the order he was given by an admin in regards to a userbox. --LeyteWolfer 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EpicFlame created several blatant attack userboxes, one of which he re-created after an MFD. I was admittedly wrong to say that he had no constructive edits at all, and I can reduce the block to a temporary one if need be, but I do stand by my judgment that this user did more harm to the project than good. GlassCobra 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wikiproject that he is a member of? Did he use the userbox anywhere? (Granted, why would he create them with no intention of using them, but if they're hidden in his userspace and remain unused, then I don't see the harm that requires a long-term block.) Thank you for overturning the ban to a short-term block. --LeyteWolfer 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

the amdins were batshit insane

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=the amdins were batshit insane |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=the amdins were batshit insane |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=the amdins were batshit insane |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}