User talk:A:-)Brunuś

Welcome!

Hello, A:-)Brunuś, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:MrCherry.png for speedy deletion with the reason "isnt a enemy in Supertux 0.3.1". However, "isnt a enemy in Supertux 0.3.1" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Images for deletion if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuck / Shit

I noticed that you tagged the pages Fuck and Shit for Speedy Deletion as "waste, vulgar". Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored. If you dislike those pages, please don't edit them. If they offend you, maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Thank you. -- Alexf⁴² 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

page move of example.com

Your page move has been reverted. Please examine the technical merits of your edits before performing them and, when in doubt whether they may be controversial, discuss them on the articles talk pages first. In this case the move was technically wrong as the article clearly discusses second level DNS domains and not some feature of the world wide web, or 3rd level domains or host names. Kbrose (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ice Age pagemoves

I've reverted your moves of Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs and Ice Age: The Meltdown, as the films do not actually have numerals in the titles. Please do not attempt to move them again without discussion first. Thanks. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Howl's Moving Castle

Why are you marking all of the redirects to be deleted? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes them unnecessary? They are redirects that have existed for a long time. Please read WP:R to better understand the reason for redirects. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Howell's Moving Castle (film)

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Howell's Moving Castle (film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is no reason to delete this - redirects are cheap and redirects from mis-spellings are useful - see WP:R#KEEP, and for valid speedy reasons see WP:CSD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Howl's Moving Castle (film), without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not move articles to titles containing curly apostrophes or quotes. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Howl's Moving Castle. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Referrer is correct

The correct word is "referrer" (double r), in both US and UK English. The fact that there were three articles with that spelling would be a good reason to start a discussion before changing the spelling and renaming each article. The affected pages (after moving) are:

• HTTP referer
• Referer spam
• Referer spoofing

Is there a reason these should not be restored to "referrer"? Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored these pages. If needed, please discuss on the talk page of one of the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:HTTP_referer#Reverted_move. Consensus can change, but you can't just make unilateral moves with no comment, when there's ongoing discussion. Superm401 - Talk 19:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me providing basic information, as I see your account was created in June 2008. However, since you have under 300 edits in total there are some things which you may not be aware of. There are a small number of hard rules which, if violated, can cause an editor to be blocked. One of those is no edit warring: editors must discuss disputed issues on the talk page of the article concerned. Some thought will show that this is required to avoid silly situations where editor A makes a change and editor B reverts it, whereupon A repeats and B repeats, and so ad infinitum. The procedures for what happens when a disagreement cannot be resolved by discussion are somewhat unclear (see WP:DR), but editors must discuss issues and must not repeat disputed changes. While a discussion is in progress, articles should be left in their "established" state—how they were before the dispute began (there are exceptions, such as when the dispute involves copyrighted material or WP:BLP violations). Also, it is important for collaboration that edit summaries are used when making changes.

The current issue involves three articles (HTTP referrer and Referrer spam and Referrer spoofing). While bold editing is encouraged, some thought should be used: How likely is it that three established articles on common technical matters would contain a blatant spelling mistake? How likely is it that none of the many highly knowledgeable technical editors failed to notice that the titles of the three articles were spelled incorrectly?

At any rate, please join the discussion at Talk:HTTP referer#Reverted move. If you would like to reply to this message, please reply here (there is no need to notify me). However, any comments concerning the articles should be at the talk page I just linked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the guidelines for marking edits as "minor"

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —Coroboy (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ultraviolet" vs "Ultra Violet"

The song is variously spelt with both varients by the band, even in the same medium (consider the Achtung Baby liner notes; the tracklist on the back lists it as "Ultra Violet" while the lyrics page inside uses "Ultraviolet"). Both spellings can be considered acceptable. The current consensus on Wikipedia is for it to be written as "Ultraviolet", with the footnote explaining the difference in spelling. Please do not edit war. If you truly feel that the form used is so heinously inaccurate, please use the talk page to make your arguments and try and change the consensus before moving the page to the alternate spelling. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What is A1 and what isn't

I stand by my original statement in that 99.9% of the time, if an article contains a full sentence, it is not A1able. However! You were bang-on with Super Rookies in that the author never stated what they were and thus we didn't have enough context with which to sustain an article. However, not only does Kim Suk Hoon make a reasonable claim to significance (see WP:CSD#A7) but substub is not a valid CSD criteria. When it was tagged as A1, this also was not applicable as the article gave context as to who the article was about (e.g. not just a nameless laughing man but a specific person). I hope this makes sense. Also, your continued tagging of this article in spite of advice given could be construed as deliberately disruptive editing to make a point. It's just an article, and it's already been prodded. It's ok to let it slide for a week (or indeed, give it a week to be a expanded). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Serrano (disambiguation)

Hello. This is a polite reminder to inform the creator if you nominate a page for deletion. I also don't agree with nominating a page for speedy deletion within a few minutes of creation. It also doesn't meet the deletion criteria given, as it has three entries. If you disagree, please take it to AfD, and inform the creator. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you read this message? Yet you tagged the same page for speedy deletion again, with no edit summary and not informing the creator. You knew from my message, if not before, that you should inform the creator - I can only assume you didn't because you knew I would again ask for you to take it to AfD. The page has been restored - as per my message to you and my edit summary, all three entries are valid. You didn't give a reason for your nomination other than by using [Template:db-disambig], which is not designed for disambiguation pages with three entries. The page has been restored. In future, please don't just ignore people's messages, or disrespect their contributions by deleting pages without reason and without informing them. As before, if you have an issue, take it to Articles for discussion - don't nominate it as uncontroversial when you know it is not. Also please read WP:TWODABS, MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION, or MOS:DAB in full, which explain why this page meets the guidelines. I see you nominate a lot of pages for speedy deletion. Please be more careful and considerate in future. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please respond to my messages. Thank you, Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Outline of Bahá'í Faith

I still do not know why this was nominated for speedy deletion. I was offline for a few days, and I come back to this? No reason given that make sense. It was NOT a "very short article providing no content to the reader."Marikafragen (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Outline of Bahá'í Faith

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Outline of Bahá'í Faith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has content. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Canadian emigrants to Hong Kong

Hello A:-)Brunuś. It was a mistake and I meant to create Category:Canadian emigrants to Hong Kong as a category instead.The Elixir Of Life (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Phishing employees

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Phishing employees, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: neither g11 or a1 applies. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hamidh Albargi

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hamidh Albargi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: none of these reasons (g1, a1, a3) apply - please be more careful with your tagging. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talamaur

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talamaur, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a hoax, e.g. [1]. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Greenpoint Crew

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Greenpoint Crew, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deltion of Homestead Book Company

Please read the talk page of the article. Appears that many of your speedy deletions have been declined. Please make sure that you compare versions of the articles before you recommend under the G4 tag. --Morning277 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you are involved in edit waring. Please do not change the page without reading and commenting on the talk page. Any further changes will result in a notice to the admin notice board. --Morning277 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

B-Thong

Please do not reinstate declined speedy deletion requests, as you did at B-Thong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Kristinn Daníel Kristinsson

I have revised the speedy deletion rationale on the above referenced article. I have removed the A1, G2, and A7 criteria as none are applicable to this article. The article does not meet the A1 criteria, since it is clear that the article is a BLP; the article is clearly not a test, so does not meet the G2 criteria; and the article does not meet the A7 criteria, since the article states that the subject is a professional football player. In the end, I replaced the removed CSD rationale with the G3 (hoax), since the subject as a 13-year-old boy, is clearly not a professional football player. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before nominating anymore articles for speedy deletion. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 17:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tagging

I've removed the speedy tag you added to Tindar Advising, S.L.: it contains no text yet, so it can't possibly be spam. Please have a read of WP:CSD for more info. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling new pages, but another page you tagged, James Cox (journalist), is definitely not a test page. It's really important that you tag new pages carefully, so please proceed with caution. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Global shipping network is not about a company, and it's a perfectly good article. Please read WP:Please do not bite the newcomers : your tagging is going to put off new editors. Please be more careful. Scopecreep (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I might as well pile on to this and say that Al moraheqat is also clearly not a test page. A real test page is an article where you can see that the attempt by the creator is to see "Can I make an article here?"

Reading these remarks, I am very worried about your speedy deletion tagging. Please stop tagging until you are absolutely sure you are doing it right. Continued mistaken tagging is disruptive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You've kept right on tagging in this way at Jitendra Nath Gohain, so I will have to take this to the administrators. Scopecreep (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding your misuse of speedy deletion. The thread is Over-zealous speedy deletion tagging.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Scopecreep (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder about WP:POINT. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also declined your A7 speedy deletion tag of Techscape. A7 is left intentionally specific and only applies to topics that are expressly mentioned in its criteria, but it does not include genre of music. I have, however, proposed it for deletion for notability. I've also deleted some of the other articles you nominated for speedy deletion.--Slon02 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I had previously contacted you in reference to a speedy deletion tag that you placed on an article. You also have a discussion HERE at the Administrator's Notice Board that you have not yet responded to. Please do so in order to make sure that you keep your editing rights. There appear to be some good deletion recommendations that you have made; however, there are also many that appear to be disruptive. You seem to be a good editor, but need to get a handle on the different Speedy Deletion tags. Please contact me if I can in any way assist you. --Morning277 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, A:-)Brunuś. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Accidental click

Hey, just a note that this was an accidental click. Sorry about that! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

NOTICE

You don't seem very talkative regarding this speedy delete issue at ANI [2] It would sincerely be in your best interest to come to this discussion and contribute, otherwise you limit us in how we handle this to using only the ugliest of methods: sanctions. Join us and help us understand so that we don't have to do something rash to get your attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You really need to start communicating, especially if you pull pranks like nominating the main page. That you've done some good work doesn't mean you can get away with stuff like that. Address the problem of the speedy deletion tagging at the noticeboard, or you might find yourself banned from CSDs altogether. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing (CSD). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

After you are unblocked, you need to come to ANI here and help us understand some of your actions, including this [3]. Any admin can unblock upon your pledge to come to the ANI and address the concerns, without any further permission from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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).

A:-)Brunuś (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

why do you think my DBs were disruptive?

Decline reason:

Answered below. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

• In particular, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Main Page. The rest of the issues were covered at the ANIs that you refused to take part in, including here. Many of your speedy delete requests are fine, but you are producing a great many that are clearly outside the criteria and it has become disruptive, enough so that now a second ANI has been filed by another editor. That you have refused to reply in any way wasn't helpful, making me conclude that the only way to stop the disruption was by a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah… Seriously, I think that Main Page should be moved to Wikipedia: or Portal: namespace because it is not an article.

• Well, that's not going to happen; let's not waste any more words on it (you didn't propose a move, you proposed deletion--besides, it's ridiculous). There is an entire section on this talk page, "Your speedy deletion tagging", where you never responded to comments on a serious amount of incorrect CSD tags; asking "why do you think my DBs were disruptive?" is a bit silly considering that it was already answered. You need to address those issues, plain and simple. If you don't, and these problems happen again after your block expires, a next block will be longer. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Yasht101 Is An ALIEN

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Yasht101 Is An ALIEN, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:DELTALK even if it was a very poor joke, this shouldn't be deleted without a good reason. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Academy

"We see that you need a little more understanding of Counter-Vandalism before you're granted Rollback. The Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy exists to help users, like yourself, understand the way to identify and handle Vandalism through one-on-one instruction. Perhaps you'd like to ask a question of our instructors, or perhaps Enroll in the Academy".

. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I tagged the article Maggie Boleslawski with the wrong tag and you fixed it. Thanks! Jamison^Guestbook_Userboxes 14:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag at How Fidelia Went to the Store

Hi A:-)Brunuś. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for How Fidelia Went to the Store, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion A7 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. A7 does not apply to novels or short stories. Also, the context of the article was clear (i.e. it was a short story by Mary Wilkins Freeman) so it doesn't qualify for A1. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the page "Casa de Descanso San Alberto" in English Wikipewdia

Sorry, I thought I was placed in Spanish Wikipedia, you can delete it, afterward I created it in the right place. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.224.117.253 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Acham Madam Nanam

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Acham Madam Nanam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to movies or TV shows. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kozak System

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kozak System, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Haydamaky (band) is about a different band. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:A10. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion under A10. Please restore the A7 speedy deletion tag I put on the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A:-)Brunuś. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion declined: Tony Pezzano

I think there is enough there to pass the fairly low bar of WP:CSD#A7 and (if sourced) maybe enough for notability. I have replaced the speedy with a BLP-prod. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hi A:-)Brunuś. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Template:X4/doc, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome?

I reverted this edit [4] as I am pretty sure that Jimbo Wales has already been welcomed to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that the additional welcome template was particularly helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

what are you doing?

I have to rush to work in about one minute, but I have one question: why are you tagging sandbox template pages for speedy deletion? G2 does not apply to such sandbox pages. →Bmusician 14:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to do a mass rollback of this incredible disruption (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know (as I was unable to do so because I received an urgent call) that I have reported this to WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

because someone created subpages

What does that mean? Tiderolls 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone created useless subpages of sandbox templates. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a very clear notice, that explained its purpose, and also "This template is used by User:lowercase sigmabot". Now, how did you think it was useless? →Στc. 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

why are you relying on subpages of sandbox templates for your bot to work? from what I recall, anyone can edit Template:X1, ..., Template:X9. it would seem to be much safer to just use a different template name, or a different namespace. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly on point, Frietjes. Tiderolls 20:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:COMPETENCE and disruption. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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).

A:-)Brunuś (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have Aspergers syndrome. I was doing edits in WP:good faith. I will NEVER ever CSD, PROD or XfD anything anymore (except my user subpages). You can enforce a WP:topic ban on me. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, competence is required, and Wikipedia is not therapy. Good faith edits that are disruptive are still disruptive, and, unfortunately, based on your history, the block appears valid. I'd suggest perhaps working at WikiQuote or Wiktionary for awhile, learning the ropes and establishing a good record, then taking the standard offer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

• I appreciate you finally discussing, and will leave it to another admin to review your unblock request, as I had been the one to block you previously. Even before today there were questions about your suitability to edit here, as communication is a key requirement to participate in a collaborative environment. As to why you don't communicate unless you are blocked, the reason isn't as important so much as the fact itself, that you simply won't communicate until you are blocked. This puts a burden on the rest of the community, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, as I have extensive knowledge and experience with Aspergers and the entire Autism Spectrum, you cannot use it as an excuse for these edits or your behaviour; period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)