User talk:SebastainTorres

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism and creation of hoax articles. 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here SebastainTorres (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2011 (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^{::==( o )} 14:18, 1 August 2011 (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.

Give me a good reason why I'm blocked from editing you usless twit. &mdash SebastainTorres (talk)

Calling someone a "usless twit" is sufficient ground for blocking you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here SebastainTorres (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every indication is that the author wishes to re-submit his fantasy articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (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.

Right I understand you blocked people for vandilisim but my articles are not such things and you keep deleating them is making me upset and as a race driver i get upset easly so why did you block me or at least tell me how i can Improve on my articles please. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastainTorres (talk • contribs)

Your articles were made-up nonsense, like David Evans (F1 Driver) born September 1988 who you said drove in the 2001 British Grand Prix - at the age of 12 - and 2011: Formula One Season copied from 2011 Formula One season with all the drivers' names changed, like "Hannah Wood" driving for Mercedes Petronas instead of Michael Schumacher. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here SebastainTorres (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

as above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (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.

I ask you how i can IMPROVE THEM and not whats wrong with them, I am a big fan of formula one and would never go out to imate them, the drivers are all in formula world which yes it has the same teams and races as formula one but different drivers so its not made up, also I like to add I'll will be adding a pole to see how many fans are upset with this new tv deal so I understand Admin rules as i own the Formula World website which has over 10000 hits a week. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastainTorres (talk • contribs)

Is that http://www.formulaworldracing.com/? I've just looked at it - or tried to. The whole centre box is a mailto link. (I didn't...) As to the drivers, the only blue linked ones are an American actress, a Professor of Geography, a Danish footballer, a fictional character, a disam page and the son of an American President (who died in 1877). So it would appear to me that these are not the drivers you mean. And that every single one of then is non-notable. Possibly classmates? I mean, Charlotte Webster and Chloe Bateman driving for an Indian team? A remarkable number of them seem to be British, too. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way you can "improve" articles about a twelve-year-old F1 driver, or a Lotus Renault F1 team whose drivers are Natalie Everett and Connie D. They just ain't true. I guess what this is about is some form of fantasy racing tournament, like they have fantasy football leagues, in which case, sorry, but Wikipedia is not a web-host for that kind of thing, it is a serious encyclopedia, for articles about notable subjects consisting of facts verifiable from reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here SebastainTorres (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've wasted quite enough of our time with your nonsense. Any future unblock requests can be made by emailing the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (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.

The main 3 websites are still unconstruction and wont be completed untill The Sinapore grand prix in septemember, yes the 2011 championship is mostly British but the drivers profiles were being done till you blocked me, how dare you call me fantaist i do not day dream at all I will improve on the once I'm unblocked