User talk:Maleidys Perez

September 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to It's a Small World, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tiger the Tony

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, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Tiger the Tony, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Tony the Tiger. (See section A10 of the criteria 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 Tony the Tiger, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
It appears to be about something made up, and 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. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm Tompop888. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tony the Tiger have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tompop888^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to SpongeBob SquarePants. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 15:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I placed a block on your account believing that it might have been evading a block that's been going on at Tony the Tiger. I realized that this was not the case, and I've of course unblocked your account. Please accept my humble apologies for the mistake. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tiger the Tony

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Tiger the Tony, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. reddogsix (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tony the Tiger, you may be blocked from editing. Jarkeld (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Talk:San Francisco (sans-serif typeface) to discuss your proposed addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wanna keep editing Maleidys Perez (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:31, 14 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because I understand what you have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead.Maleidys Perez (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This convinces me you know how to copy-and-paste, but doesn't convince me you'll stop disrupting Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (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 are not permitted to blank the unblock decline for an active block. You are welcome to make a new unblock request, but cannot blank the old one. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-->{{unblock|reason=the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for (disruptive editing), I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, I will stop disrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia, and I will make useful contributions instead.Maleidys Perez (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wanna keep editing, and the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for (disruptive editing), I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, I will stop disrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia, and I will make useful contributions instead.Maleidys Perez (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After going through your edits I can't help but conclude that the disruptive editing problem goes well beyond the edits made from this single account. I am all but certain that you also vandalized Wikipedia without being logged into this account on multiple occasions - the overlap between your edits and several IP editors edits are clear as daylight; geolocating the IP addresses only supports this assertion. Considering the amount of vandalism and the fact that you were previously block for the same behaviour I'll extend this 72 hour block to an indefinite one. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:04, 14 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry, i will never vandalize wikipedia, and i will make useful contributions instead. please, never give me an indefinite block, and i will never keep editing disruptively, and not neccessary to prevent damage or disrupition to Wikipedia. and I understand why I have been blockedMaleidys Perez (talk) 4:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Utterly unconvincing. I've removed talk page access. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 14 April 2017 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Maleidys Perez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18219 was submitted on May 07, 2017 19:35:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the UTRS unblock request contains a blatant lie. The user has engaged in block evasion as late as yesterday. --Yamla (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Maleidys Perez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18220 was submitted on May 07, 2017 22:20:04. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Maleidys Perez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18222 was submitted on May 07, 2017 23:51:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Maleidys Perez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18294 was submitted on May 15, 2017 21:01:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

User has been banned from WP:UTRS for six months. However, WP:SO still applies. If this user makes zero edits (including zero edits from IP addresses), the user would be eligible for unblock consideration after November 16, 2017. I want to be incredibly clear. That's zero edits, including "anonymous" edits (edits from an IP address, when not signed in). Zero edits. Zero. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this "unblock request" on NeilN's page. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, you'll have to reset that clock again. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Given the nature of the "contributions" from this vandal, they are clearly just trolling. In any case, timer reset. --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla — BilCat — Oshwah — Drmies: See also this unblock request by an IP left this morning at User talk:Oshwah. General Ization ^Talk 14:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this. General Ization ^Talk 14:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this. Huon (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as they just requested an unblock from an IP, it's safe to say that they will not be gone from Wikipedia long enough for the SO to ever take effect. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Looks like there was little or no vandalism/disruptive editing for those months, so we can think if there can be unblock consideration for this user? 64.237.238.120 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for this obvious block evasion. Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading the block to a ban, as per WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]