Hello, Twyfords-Tri-Shell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sizzling pub, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. FeinohaTalk, My master20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as SHHH.., to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TheDude2006 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Sizzling pub requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator has opted to give you another chance but the next time you create an inappropriate page, vandalize an existing page (especially a biography of a living person) or remove a speedy deletion template from an article you created, you will be blocked. Please read the notices on these pages for information on what to do next.--RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I shall hault myself. Should I put a notice on a talk page before I edit a page? Just to be safe, I will take this strategy until I get a response. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on SHHH.. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 3 May 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).
I am not a vandal I have not even edited article space only talk pages. Explan how am I a vandal?
Decline reason:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a place for posting catty celebrity gossip. If you can't understand and abide by that, expect to keep getting blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 3 May 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.
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a place for posting catty celebrity gossip. If you can't understand and abide by that, expect to keep getting blocked." Ok I accept that. In future I will make sure that all information about celebrity gossip is backed up and in accordance with the rules of wikipeida. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is he any less notable then say Joe McElderry or for that matter Steve Brookstein? How much notable information has been heard about Steve in recent years? Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that since Jady Goody's death in 2009 Jack Tweed has done enough notable things without her to have his own article on wikipedia. So I will attempt to create a article involving him. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the article and I think the fact that Chanelle Hayes has her own article proves Jack has done enough to get one. If he had like Hayes releaced a album which failed to chart, this would have been done long ago. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Katy Perry, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Şłџğģő19:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you comment on your user name? This is the policy WP:U. Twyfords is a company and tri-shell is a product associated with the industry in which Twyfords are involved - porcelain sanitary ware. Is there a conflict per WP:U? Leaky Caldron20:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is so funny. Wikipedia has a much needed Jack Tweed article and my contributions are diffrent in SO many ways to the sockpuppet I've been 'linked' to. Good you have a sence of humor though. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm just waiting for a patrolling admin to stroll by that SPI page. Shouldn't be long before we can close that discussion on ANI. Şłџğģő21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been found to be a sock of the user you were suspected to be a sock of. Therefore, you have been blocked indefintely by an admin sorting through the case. Bye.— DædαlusContribs06:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It took several hours to come to a conclusion. Clearly the case is flawed and there is not justice in my block. Therefore I should be unblocked. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 07:41, 9 May 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).
Whole case is flawed, wikipeida has failed by blocking me. No reason to block me under wikipedia's regulations so I should be unblocked.
Decline reason:
The case is "flawed" because it took a couple of hours? Just because the volunteer SPI clerks were busy either sleeping or actually making intelligent edits to Wikipedia does not make the case flawed. WP:Wikilawyering is not a recommended process. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:00, 9 May 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.
It's only necessary if you just want to get yourself banned, because that's the only thing it's going to do. Further, it's quite obvious you're a sock, so you would be better off admitting to it, instead of continuing to deny it until you are blue in the face.— DædαlusContribs04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's gone. That is, Twyfords-Tri-Shell is gone. Mcjakeqcool, on the other hand, will be back if he's not already; he's probably learned by now that repeated unblock requests aren't as helpful as just starting up another account. And I still feel a twinge of guilt, since we have almost no way of knowing if he's acting in good faith or not. Şłџğģő07:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mcjakeqcool should know by now that Wikipedia is not for him: his own actions made him persona non grata, and simply making new accounts won't change that. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, though. He would know that were he able to process information that runs contrary to what he knows or believes. He almost definitely does not have this ability. I'd bet money he's ignoring policy because for him, the ends justify the means. Şłџğģő15:42, 10 May 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).
I feel I should be unblocked as I have removed the copyrighted text from my User talk. That shows I can abide by the wiki-laws of WP:COPYVIO.
Decline reason:
You are not blocked because you added copyrighted text, you are blocked because you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user as confirmed my checkuser. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 17 May 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.
Sigh... Ok, wikipeida is right I am Mcjakeqcool I am not but no matter how many times I say it... Bottom-line is you are correct I am not blocked because I added copyrighted text, I are blocked because I are a sockpuppet of a blocked but the roots of that fact are a argument for another day. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to being User Mcjakeqcool I have only dreamed of such a offer. I do admit though to studying wikipeida policy and atempting various disguises to become a credible sockpuppet like I feel this User is. I also turn in my current account Miloteletaleprohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miloteletalepro which is part meat, part sock as Milo Quinn is my son. I will also find somewhere else on the internet apart from the Samou4-Directory-Pointhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samou4-directory-point to advertise new Mcjakeqcool websites and other places rather then random talk pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.20.32.16 to post lyrics related to my rap career. 86.3.121.10 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I apologize for using some IP adresses for vandalism and creating some accounts like Nicholas-Ball-Wiki, Stephen-Lord-Wiki and User:JameszJJames because I got a 'buzz' out of the reaction but I promise I will not repeat any such behaviors. I did such things because I had nothing to lose as I could not edit the talk page of my main account. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what: you agree to stay away from Wikipedia editing from any manner for 6 months, including WP:MEAT, and I will go back to your mcjakeqcool account right now, and set it up so that exactly 6 months from today, it will become unlocked for editing by you. If you sock, meat, edit with an IP or anything between when you agree and 6 months from then, it goes back to being locked, and every account you setup between now and forever will be blocked. 6 months from now, you'll still have to beg to become unblocked, but at least you will get the chance. While you're gone, go back and read everything from WP:5P onward so that you know what does belong, and what never belongs. You'll be able to enjoy the summer. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See you there, 2 things though, 1 the guy at ANI is Milotelltalepro and is Jake, 2 I use some IP adresses that are public buildings so unless it blatently looks like my editing it is not me. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
