This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

January 2008 =

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Worms: A Space Oddity, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Worms: A Space Oddity was changed by Sneasel99 (c) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2008-01-09T19:49:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What teh hell are u talking about? (Sneasel99 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Worms: A Space Oddity, you will be blocked from editing. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But where was teh source? (Sneasel99 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, it had 2 references and 1 external link.Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, but are they reliable? (Sneasel99 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You can tag the page if you think they are not reliable, for example {{sources}}, lack of sources is not a reason to vandalize the article.Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey? hang on, i didn't vandalise it. I just edited it and wrote in my concern. My concern, is that THQ are publishing the game, but there are no sources about that! THQ is a reliable source, and those sources are not reliable enough. (Sneasel99 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The tag {{unreferenced}} is not appropriate for the article since it has sources, regardless of their reliability. If you think that sources are unreliable, express your concern on the talk page. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back on for the following concern: lack of a good source. (Sneasel99 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - Philippe | Talk 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War! seriously what are you on about? (Sneasel99 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya (Talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will fill it in if, to me, the edit is important and needs to be described. Thank you for your concern, but i do editing my way, and will type in the edit summary when it is an important edit. (Sneasel99 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Edit War

Details on what an edit war is and how policy pertains to it can be found at WP:EW. Hope this helps. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more specifically:

Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.

Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one. - Philippe | Talk 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eheh...so about Rayman.

Typically, it's not a great idea to undo decisions by Administrators like Ioeth. If you honestly are wondering who Rayman is, it'd probably be a better idea to just consult the article in question, a.k.a Rayman (character). Or you could simply have asked on Ioeth's talk page as he did decide to undo your edit, which by the way was based on the idea that talk pages are not meant to be forums/message boards, but rather focused discussion on improving the article in question. This and more is highlighted in WP:TALK. Hope that was at least a little bit helpful! KojieroSaske (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of I am sneasel

A tag has been placed on I am sneasel, 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 page (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. Redfarmer (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as I am sneasel, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what the word innapropiate means. (Sneasel99 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe not, but keep it up and you'll learn the definition of banhammer first hand. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh! but this isn't a forum is it? (Sneasel99 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, you're right, it's not a forum. But there are administrators, such as myself, who do have the ability to block or ban users in cert ain cas es. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe | Talk 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! thats not fair, and all i did was create a stupid article. (Sneasel99 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (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).

Sneasel99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

. I am cool

Decline reason:

You did not submit the request while logged in. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:00, 10 January 2008 (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.

False Unblocks

Falsifying an unblock is not the way to get yourself unblocked. It's actually a really good way to prove that you don't intent to be a constructive member of our community and get your block extended. - Philippe | Talk 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worms: a space oddity

I removed the reference tag from Worms: a space oddity. If you have any concerns, send me a message. (Astrodog280 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]