User talk:Tedescoboy22

Transformers nominations

If you are interested in Transformers nominations go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting Dwanyewest (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Transformers AFDs

Those comments you're leaving on the AFDs are thoroughly unhelpful. Not everything has to be covered on American TV to be notable. Please stop acting like it needs to be.

Thank you for your time, --Divebomb (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Stop Hatin'"? --Divebomb (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your work but...

Whilst I admire your work trying to clear Transformers of bad articles I wouldn't recommend nominating articles a month after they have been AFD'd. I can think of a dozen mediocore Transformers articles which need nomination. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had enough

Please do the following things:

Read the notability guidelines and tell me where it says that a fictional subject must receive coverage in major newspapers and/or American TV news to be notable.
Read WP:SPEEDY and tell me which of the criteria can be applied to Hailstorm (Transformers).
Generally cease making unhelpful comments.
Clarify what you meant by saying "Stop Hatin'".

Thank you for your time, --Divebomb (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. Unfortunately, your general unhelpfulness is not allowing me to do so. --Divebomb (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nominations for deletion

Please stop nominating articles due to them being "cruft" or for reasons which could be construed as any of these arguments. I gather you may be feeling frustrated by the pace of nominations for deletion, but starting deletion discussions by saying it's cruft or by using any of the arguments to avoid confuses people and may lead to articles being kept that perhaps should not be kept. Instead, please use arguments like these. When arguing for a delete because an article has no references, it is assumed that you have searched for such references before nominating or recommending the article for deletion - evidence of this is always appreciated. There are many other ways of identifying reliable sources other than major news outlets, and a subject which is not covered by CNN etc. may still be notable by meeting the general notability guidelines or other notability guidelines. Thanks, I hope this helps you. Don't forget, Wikipedia is serious business. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

I have noticed that you have started to follow my edits and after I edit a page you nominate it for deletion. This happened the last two days with the article for Lugnut (Transformers) and Rage (Transformers). This happens after I caught you in a lie on the Transformers Wikiproject and pointed it out. If you continue to follow my work and nominate pages I edit for deletion each day I will be making a complaint that you are harassing me. Mathewignash (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just pose the question straight out. Is this a sock of Claritas (talk · contribs) ? If so, just fess up and save us the length of a sockpuppet investigation. If it isn't, then your actions (nominating articles for deletion with 100% invalid criteria) are exactly like the above user, who was blocked indefinitely. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Screw the whole "I'm not exactly the right person to do this" thing I said yesterday, I'm going to file an SPI on this guy. --Divebomb (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a man of my word. The SPI is located here. --Divebomb (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH that was a quick SPI.

He's not Claritas. --Divebomb (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Well, as seen in a recent case, even if the SPI is inconclusive or negative, a user who does the exact same thing that a banned/blocked user has done can likely expect the same consequences in the end. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I and several other editors have grown fed up with your behaviour. I have therefore opened an RFC discussion about your behaviour: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tedescoboy22. JIP | Talk 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His latest edit seems to be voting to KEEP an article that's a complete hoax. Another disruptive behavior? Voting to delete articles that have some merrit, while voting to keep obvious hoaxes? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at the RfC, you have now been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you wish to contest this block, please add a message to your talk page about it. You cannot edit any other page on Wikipedia. If you wish to pursue this action, your behaviour will be discussed again. Until then, you are considered as a troll, whose only intent is disturbing Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 20:34, 31 October 2010 (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).

Tedescoboy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

May I please be unblocked so I can explain myself on the Request for Comment? That should be only fair, arter all. Thank you.

Decline reason:

No, an unblock is not warranted at this time. However, as Hersfold suggests, you can post a comment on this talk page and I or another editor will transcribe it to the RFC. Use the {{helpme}} template, or create a "Please Copy This Statement to the RFC" section on this page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:18, 1 November 2010 (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'm not going to unblock as I don't disagree that this user has been disruptive, but I will comment that it should be appropriate to let the user respond at the RFC. I will also state that JIP is an involved user and should not be the best person to place a block on this user, and that the RFC has yet to gain a consensus that the user should be blocked. If such a consensus is later acheived, then a subsequent block would make a lot more sense. BOZ (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure that you should be unblocked in light of your edits, but perhaps a compromise: if you post a response below along with a {{helpme}} tag, someone will come by and copy your response over to the RFC for you. Would that work? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:13, 1 November 2010 (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).

Tedescoboy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by an involved editor. Please unblock so I can participate in the RFC fully

Decline reason:

You fail to explain why exactly the blocking administrator is not WP:UNINVOLVED with respect to you. Sandstein 21:25, 1 November 2010 (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.

Note to JIP

The reason I didn't respond sooner is because I don't generally use the computer on weekends. I hadn't logged onto wikipedia for a while then saw that I was blocked! Please understand -- Its not that I was trying to ingnore your queries -- it was just a holiday weekend here and I wasn't on-line. I wasn't on line last weekend either. Thank you for your time. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2010 (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).

Tedescoboy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The administrator is involved because he readily admits to being such. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I'm reluctant to override this block, since the RfC indicates that you have been making very disruptive edits, and none of your unblock requests addresses this in any way. If you'd like to make a comment at the RfC, you can do so in the way indicated above. I should warn you that further unblock requests that don't address the reason for your block may result in the disabling of your talk page- and then, unlike now, you really would be unable to comment at the RfC. So please make sure that the comment you want to make is available here before you request unblock again. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 1 November 2010 (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).

Tedescoboy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my behavior and promise to listen to senior editors and engage in constructive dialog if you give me one more chance. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Now that's a start. As explained above, you can now write a paragraph below that can be copied to the RfC currently discussing your behaviour; explain your actions, apologise to the editors involved, and show how you intend to go forward should you be unblocked. That is where your case will be heard, so I suggest you write carefully. Any further transgressions will result in your talk page being protected and cutting you off from communicating further. Step hen 00:23, 3 November 2010 (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.

Your request for the disabling of this talk page is accepted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]