User talk:`GP

Welcome!

Hello, `GP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! gren グレン 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. gren グレン 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Early November

There is an important issue that needs to be addressed on Talk:The Early November. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Britney Spears

Please stop vandalising articles on wikipedia. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of things nobody cares about

A tag has been placed on List of things nobody cares about, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. A^RendedWinter 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of things nobody cares about

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as List of things nobody cares about, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. A^RendedWinter 15:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not recreate deleted articles. Read the above notice, and if you disagree with the deletion, go to WP:WMD and follow its directions. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 02:59, 23 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

uh ok im new to this. ahem. firstly i was given a single warning then banned less than an hour later during which time i was sleep and therefore unable to do something deserving of a ban. there was no 'next time' before i was blocked. secondly, this ban has me (wrongfully) pegged as a "vandalism-only account". a quick glance through my edit history will reveal various minor edits, for example my removal of redundant text in the Idiot (usage) page and rewording of the Martyr page, an edit which still stands. if the admin wishes to retain my block please file it under the correct category. thank you. (how'd i do??)

Decline reason:

Based on your contributions, it looks as though you've engaged in sneaky but nonetheless disruptive vandalism (prime example), offensive edit summaries (example), and other blatantly obvious vandalism (example). I see no reason to believe you are here to usefully contribute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

imo the "prime example" would be the most recent changing of an image for a front page featured article at the time. that you chose the editing of one number to the date on his birth certificate--a more reliable date than jimmy's own words which is discourage on wikipedia-- clearly indicates bias. you also cite "offensive edit summar*ies*" yet there is quite clearly only one and it was, frankly, true--it was a terrible piece of 'pedia i removed. i was given no indication that using the edit summaries in such a manner was a blockable offense. is there anyway i could get just 1 more chance? i point again to the fact i was given a warning then later blocked without later justification. i will accept any later block for even minor reasons if this one is rescinded. thank you for your time

Decline reason:

As it turns out, making a few vaguely constructive edits does not prevent you from being blocked indef when nearly all of your other edits are vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 25 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

requesting previous unblock request to be reviewed by a different admin, Ohnoitsjamie only replied to my first unblock request which had already been replied to. thank you for your time

Decline reason:

"New to this"? You've been vandalizing since your second edit back in 2006; you've created not one but two obnoxious "articles" under the same name; you've shown no serious interest in contributing to this project on the few occasions when you drift back in. Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 25 June 2009 (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.

((unblock|aplogies if the meaning was misunderstood i am new to this unblock request thing. actually i drift in a lot and edit a lot of articles in a positive manner (ie not vandalism) without logging in. a large subset of my edits are being ignored in favour of ones i made while logged in, and again, my 2nd unblock request has yet to be replied to. thank you for your time. it is interesting you note "under the same name", as if that is of importance considering my ip has been blocked. im sure you are all aware how trivial it is to circumspect this--note this is not a threat of any kind (would be quite futile) but rather a notification i am trying to do this in good faith. i understand many admins are disillusioned with many vandals and i would simply like the chance offered to me by Multixfer in his initial warning. thank you for a time))

Personally, I don't see what we have to lose by giving this a shot -- if you edit productively, we gain a new contributor and everyone is better off; if you cause more trouble, we re-block and the project is no worse off than it was, before. You've waited a good while since your last unblock request, which does lead me to think you're serious about this. I'm willing to assume good faith and will drop a note or two about looking into this. Please bear with us, in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Discussed with the blocking admin, who seems a bit dubious but is willing to let me give this a shot. I'm sticking my neck out, here, don't make me think twice about it. ;) Feel free to see our introduction for newcomers in the meantime.

Request handled by: – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.