User talk:Wooktook

YOOz

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Pierrot le Fou. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, Wooktook. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 06:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages

Please do not insert comments in the middle of talk pages.Jim1138 (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Jim1138 with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Jim1138 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jim1138. Jim1138 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Jim1138, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:25, 18 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

ill donate 5 bucks to wjkipedia if you unblock me Wooktook (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 18 February 2012 (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.

We don't take bribes.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

genius the 4th can vouch for me Wooktook (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can vouch for your lack of constructive edits. Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 18 February 2012 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:48, 22 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just got off of a 3 day block . I've been editing constructively, and now I see I'm blocked. I now want to help wikipedia. I've already requested rollback and contributed to AfD. Wooktook (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (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.

"Constructively"? I do not feel that you have done anything constructive since your three day block expired. You must address the block rationale(s) if you'd like to be unblocked. --B music ian 03:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Wooktook, you have been given two tries (according to this page) and from what I have seen from your edits, you have abused your editing privileges. I would recommend the standard offer in your case because you have lost the trust of the community on this project. Once that good faith is betrayed then it is extremely difficult to recover, regardless of one's future intentions. If you continue to waste the time of volunteer administrators (not an accusation, I'm telling you that is what you are doing), you will lose the ability to edit this page. $Abhijay$ ^{What did I do this time?} 08:45, 22 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

In that case, I'd like to request the standard offer.

Decline reason:

Did you bother to read it? It means come back in august and maybe somebody will feel like unblocking you Jac16888 ^Talk 19:42, 22 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

i will only submit to a block if a vote of arbcom determines i should be. otherwise, let the vandalism continue. #Genius(4th Power)

Decline reason:

Sadly arbcom has more important things to do than deal with minor pests. Talk page access removed Jac16888 ^Talk 19:58, 22 February 2012 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) GENIUS(4th Power), you are community banned, which means you are not welcome to be on this site anymore. Find another place to troll and screw around and grow up. Soviet King (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]