User talk:Togepi 987

Koridai[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Koridai, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Koridai. JD554 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Koridai[edit]

I have nominated Koridai, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koridai. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. JD554 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Because they meet the criteria at WP:CSD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:YouTubeproj[edit]

Template:YouTubeproj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um[edit]

Any particular reason why you vandalized my userpage? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) BEcause you deleted my "Youtubeproj" template without my permission. Togepi 987 (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO excuse to vandalize. None. If you have a problem with a deletion, you can take it to deletion review. Or you have a problem with something I do, write me on my talk page. Do not vandalize my userpage. Or anyone else's for that matter. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had gone about it the right way, I probably would've reversed the deletion and put it back up for a vote. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Now on, you can be the one to delete a page I ask you too

Vandalism[edit]

Why did you vandalise my user page? Maxim_(talk) 12:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you delete too much. Make even one page, rather than delete them. Togepi 987 (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

I see you've been vandalising a number of users' userspaces, because they undertook an action that you did not agree with. Your vandalism, and the general attitude that underlies that mentality, is disruptive and harmful to the project. Further vandalism on your part will result in an indefinite block. Please, edit constructively. Anthøny 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy note, you are referred to in this thread on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Anthøny 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images[edit]

I have deleted these from your user page. Fair-use images are only permitted in Articles, per image policy. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

In particular, see [1]. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 17 April 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).

Togepi 987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All of these are mine.

Decline reason:

That's not exactly an unblock reasoning. Would you like to offer a reason you should be unblocked? — Golbez (talk) 05:41, 18 April 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.

I didn't mean to vandalize.

You can post another unblock request. I suggest you promise not to vandalize or disrupt. List specifically what you did, and say specifically that you won't do it again. That way we can see that you understand the problem, and that you won't do it again. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vandalized. I promised I will NEVER do it again. I promise. Togepi 987 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 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).

Togepi 987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

sorry

Decline reason:

Unconvincing. — Sandstein (talk) 12:31, 10 May 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.

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).

Togepi 987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't vandalize again

Decline reason:

Not seeing the warnings is no excuse. We're here to build an encyclopedia.

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =)
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you.— Rjd0060 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 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.

And the reason I continued to vandalize, is because I failed to see the warnings.

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).

Togepi 987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay! Okay! I will do what you want! Just unblock me, okay? I will improve articles, and I will never vandalize again. Togepi 987 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't even tried to do what was suggested in the prevous decline. And frankly, I'm not convinced that you should be unblocked even when you follow them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:29, 24 May 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.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Togepi 987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Sgt_Pikachu5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for a username violation, but instead for disruption and so you need to address that problem to be unblocked. — Tiptoety ^talk 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Togepi 987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Sgt_Pikachu5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Sorry, but you can not just "start fresh" under a new username, that would be considered evading a block. Please address the current issues, and not a new username otherwise this page will be locked. — Tiptoety ^talk 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My new account, Sgt_Pikachu5, is not for vandalism. I want a clean start under a new username. Sgt_Pikachu5^{talk contribs} 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt_Pikachu5 has been blocked for sockpuppetry and evading a block, understand that creating sock accounts to attempt to get around a block is not going to get you unblocked. Tiptoety ^talk 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Mah Boi[edit]

I have nominated Mah Boi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Worst Websites[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Worst Websites, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This redirect doesn't have any connection with it's target and the title is self-evidently point of view.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Adam in MO Talk 08:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]