User talk:Agunter999

In response to your feedback

Hello! Thanks for your feedback! If you have any questions about Wikipedia , please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Have a great day! (:

Webclient101 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Agunter999, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! TOW talk 17:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of common World War II infantry weapons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please discuss the changes on the talk page, seeking the support of other editors, before adding neutral countries to the list. Allan Akbar (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Allan Akbar (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse and introducing yourself! Come by the question page some time to discuss Wikipedia with other editors. I Look forward to seeing you there. heather walls (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons

I have noticed that you have tried to make a comment made by you on "Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons" look as if it was made by someone else by replacing your autogenerated signature with the signature of another user, something that constitutes signature forgery and has been reverted. And now you have tried to remove the entire comment. Don't do things like that, it will only get you warned and possibly blocked. Allan Akbar (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Wwii equipment

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Wwii equipment. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - List of common World War II infantry weapons. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of common World War II infantry weapons - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. jfd34 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Wwii equipment

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Wwii equipment. Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willing to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok i was just seeingAgunter999 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons - signature forgery and deletion of content

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons, you may be blocked from editing. Allan Akbar (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Nomination of Wwii equipment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wwii equipment 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/Wwii equipment 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 template from the top of the article. jfd34 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Why am i blocked and not the other members involved

Because you are the only one who broke the rules. You should have followed the advice you got to learn how Wikipedia works, and what the rules here are, instead of just disregarding the warnings you got. Allan Akbar (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you were involved in the edit war

i do admit the signitur forgery thuogh

thats all

the page i made was ledal and broke no rules

3 times you reverte my work

it is not a reason to get blocked

i had perfect right to post that message on your talk pageAgunter999 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When does my block expire

not all of my contributions were disruptive i added about 90% of the content for the minor nations on List of common World War II infantry weapons Agunter999 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indefinete realy was that realy nessercery never been blocked before

please listen to meAgunter999 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2012 (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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 29 June 2012 (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.

You have a similer name to meAgunter998 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK

User:Temperyagunter999

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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Temperyagunter999 Agunter999 (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the reasons for the block. You should explain your reason for unblock here on this talk page, in the unblock request where it says "Your reason here". You should not create a new account and use its user page to explain your unblock reason - that other account is now blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2012 (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.

New unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, a couple of things to clear up

I did not set out or purposely to cause disruption to wikipeadia I understand that I should have consulted other editors on this issue Please consider this earlier request 'I have witnessed many people been blocked for sock puppetry who are not sock puppets. All I tried to do was add encyclopaedic content for people to view. There was then a long discussion about this content being on this page. People kept attempting to delete it so I quickly undid this aperently breaking the 3 revert rule. A person posted a message on my talk page about this as they were involved I decided to post one back. I also posted a massage on the talk page of the article in question about something entirely different but wanted to do this anomnasly so foolishly wrote down a random ip from a previous post from a couple of years ago. The I made another account to put my information that should be seen as it was hily aceptable on it's own page other people supported this. I never purposely damaged talk pages!

The sockputting Well that was because I was angry I don't know what else to say

Sorry?

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=
First of all, a couple of things to clear up
I did not set out or purposely to cause disruption to wikipeadia
I understand that I should have consulted other editors on this issue
Please consider this earlier request
'I have witnessed many people been blocked for sock puppetry who are not sock puppets.
All I tried to do was add encyclopaedic content for people to view. There was then a long discussion about this content being on this page. People kept attempting to delete it so I quickly undid this aperently breaking the 3 revert rule. A person posted a message on my talk page about this as they were involved I decided to post one back. I also posted a massage on the talk page of the article in question about something entirely different but wanted to do this anomnasly so foolishly wrote down a random ip from a previous post from a couple of years ago.
The I made another account to put my information that should be seen as it was hily aceptable on it's own page other people supported this.
I never purposely damaged talk pages!''


The sockputting
Well that was because I was angry
I don't know what else to say
Sorry? |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=
First of all, a couple of things to clear up
I did not set out or purposely to cause disruption to wikipeadia
I understand that I should have consulted other editors on this issue
Please consider this earlier request
'I have witnessed many people been blocked for sock puppetry who are not sock puppets.
All I tried to do was add encyclopaedic content for people to view. There was then a long discussion about this content being on this page. People kept attempting to delete it so I quickly undid this aperently breaking the 3 revert rule. A person posted a message on my talk page about this as they were involved I decided to post one back. I also posted a massage on the talk page of the article in question about something entirely different but wanted to do this anomnasly so foolishly wrote down a random ip from a previous post from a couple of years ago.
The I made another account to put my information that should be seen as it was hily aceptable on it's own page other people supported this.
I never purposely damaged talk pages!''


The sockputting
Well that was because I was angry
I don't know what else to say
Sorry? |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=
First of all, a couple of things to clear up
I did not set out or purposely to cause disruption to wikipeadia
I understand that I should have consulted other editors on this issue
Please consider this earlier request
'I have witnessed many people been blocked for sock puppetry who are not sock puppets.
All I tried to do was add encyclopaedic content for people to view. There was then a long discussion about this content being on this page. People kept attempting to delete it so I quickly undid this aperently breaking the 3 revert rule. A person posted a message on my talk page about this as they were involved I decided to post one back. I also posted a massage on the talk page of the article in question about something entirely different but wanted to do this anomnasly so foolishly wrote down a random ip from a previous post from a couple of years ago.
The I made another account to put my information that should be seen as it was hily aceptable on it's own page other people supported this.
I never purposely damaged talk pages!''


The sockputting
Well that was because I was angry
I don't know what else to say
Sorry? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}