User talk:Gravitoweak

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gravitoweak, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You saw "Ooh Yeah" because someone vandalized a template that was on the page--see this edit. See Help:Template. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vicious Circle (drum and bass group)

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.

A tag has been placed on Vicious Circle (drum and bass group) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance 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. reddogsix (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Konflict - The Beckoning.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Konflict - The Beckoning.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rob F & Impulse - Ultraviolet.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rob F & Impulse - Ultraviolet.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gridlok - Mass Transit.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gridlok - Mass Transit.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's life on Wikipedia. You do some stuff, and then the stuff gets removed. Too bad. Gravitoweak (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gravitoweak. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... ??? Gravitoweak (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Francis Camusat

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.

A tag has been placed on Francis Camusat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance 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. cera don 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outrage! You could have expanded it instead of destroying it! Gravitoweak (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Talk:Chase & Status have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not violating any rule

Decline reason:

Whether you have broken any "rules" or not, you have edited in ways which are not helpful to Wikipedia. You have done so in various ways, including harassing a user, using multiple accounts to edit one article in a clear attempt to give the impression that there was consensus among a number of users, and, according to your own account, evading a block on another account. In answer to what you say below, "anyone can edit Wikipedia" does not mean "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like, and continue to do so indefinitely". Finally, have you read WP:NOTTHEM? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 9 February 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.

There is no proof of malicious behavior on my part. I just asked questions related to how this foundation operates. The same did Cla68 and other people in the past. Even if i were Negativecharge, which i am... that shouldn't really matter, since this is the site that everyone can edit, including people like Pinktulip and Ecoleetage. With your usage of bans, you just encourage more abuse. Hey, Pete Demian is here to help, he even has an unnamed admin account! Gravitoweak (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a few funny stories:

Kittybrewster, one of the Arbuthnot guys, had a load of accounts. He is still here happy as a pie.

Vintagekits has a bunchload of accounts, and he managed to get back for a while.

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com has a truckload of accounts and he's back happy and bouncy.

Giano is known as Catherine De Burgh and a few other names. Cool.

Davenbelle will be hard to catch. He tried to play nice but he lost against the barricade of nuts.

So what is the rule for more accounts than one? Is there a specific rule which goes for all? Gravitoweak (talk) 20:23, 9 February 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).

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

Request reason:

JamesBWatson, what do you mean with "harassing a user"? I asked Wales some questions about how this charity operates!

Decline reason:

I quick skim of your contributions does not convince me that you are here to build an encyclopedia, and as such your presence is disruptive. The socking makes it worse: ALL of the rules are clear, and for everyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 9 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Bwilkins, how can you say not here to build an encyclopedia? Every editor comes here to build an encyclopedia. Multiple accounts are allowed, i haven't voted with them. And of course, editors might want to know more about the charity! That's why Cla68 was inquiring people! But he got blocked too, despite having many more edits than me and making contributions which are thousands of times better than mine!

Decline reason:

Sadly, not every editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Vandals are one example - users who create large numbers of sockpuppets to disrupt the project are another. You fall into the second category. There are legitimate reasons for operating a limited number of alternate accounts, yes, however I do not see that any of yours were created for those reasons. Furthermore, tenure and quality of edits do not excuse disruptive conduct, and bringing up another editor's actions in your unblock request will not help you in any event. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:26, 9 February 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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Jours Apres Lunes

A tag has been placed on Jours Apres Lunes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this article only serves to promote an organization and isn't in English - see translation on talk page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. smileguy91^talk 18:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]