User talk:Bun39

Protection templates[edit]

Looking through the history of this talk page...it appears this isn't a new topic. I've just removed the protection template that you placed on Toon Disney since the page isn't actually protected. Also, obviously, I've undone the redirect you placed on this page. If you are going to be actively editing, there should be a place for people to be able to attempt to communicate with you. That's what this page is for. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop redirecting this page. It is not appropriate. Also, please take your Toon Disney redirect to the talk page. The channel being replaced is not necessarily a reason to get rid of the article entirely. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning[edit]

Cease your disruptive editing or I'll block you myself. —Travis ^talk 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop redirecting the talk page. It is a disruptive attempt to avoid interaction, and any further action of this sort will result in a block of significant duration. Acroterion _(talk) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for a week, due to your talk page behavior and this: [1], which is unacceptable. Any further disruption or evasion of communication will result in a permanent block. Acroterion _(talk) 16:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing[edit]

Hi there, please sign your edits on talk pages with four tildes, (~~~~). This makes sure that your name, and the date, is written at the end of every comment. It makes it easier to read if you do that. I'll see you in a week for some constructive edits :-). See you soon, Microchip08 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MARCH 2009 STOP[edit]

In March 2009, User talk:Bun39 is no more and you cant stop me.

Blocked[edit]

You have been warned numerous times by multiple people to refrain from your disruptive editing practices. Since you started again right after your previous block expired, this block is a lot longer. —Travis ^talk 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. —Travis ^talk 13:48, 13 February 2009 (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).

Bun39 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

COME ON! I was not doing anything. That's it. One more block and I quit.

Decline reason:

Not a chance. You had your last chance and you blew it Jac16888 ^Talk 21:19, 17 February 2009 (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.

Ceasing Usership[edit]

Thats It! YOU HATE ME!? Is the block a year? Or a month? I am going to cease usership in August 2009 after two years of membership!

All administrators who hate me. Just say YES! FINALLY! to me go ahead, have a party because I am ceasing my Bun39 account on August 1, 2009. BYE.

If the block is a year, bye-bye to Bun39!!!!

The block's forever you know, not a year. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true. The block is "indefinite," which means until he can convince an administrator to unblock him. I would say that it's highly unlikely unless he can convince an administrator that you can edit with a substantially different attitude. I was blocked "indefinitely" by the arbitration committee in 2007. This was in effect a ban, something that normally isn't overturned before 365 days. It took a lot of talking with and listening to the arbitration committee members supporting the block before I was unbanned/unblocked. I'm sure that for the first few months I was on a very short leash, and even today over a year later there are topics I won't touch, mainly because they are likely to tax my emotions and may cause me to edit in a way that would politely be described as "unproductive." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bun39: If you are serious about coming back, ever, cool your jets for a few weeks, then go back and read all the comments by people warning you about this or that edit. Read WP:RULES. Read them again. Read WP:MENTOR and WP:ADOPT. Analyze the edits you were warned about and write down a list of things you've done that you now know you shouldn't do. Set the list aside for a week or two. Re-read the list and re-read the rules and decide if you want to come back. Maybe you won't want to come back. Maybe you'd rather spend your time on some other web site or on something that's not Internet-related at all. If you decide you do want to come back, politely email the admin who blocked you. Tell him you've been doing some thinking and you would like to come back, and ask what you need to do to edit productively. Notice I didn't say "what do I need to do to come back." I said ask "what do you need to do to edit productively." If he tells you things that aren't in your list, add them to your list. Then, after a day or so, ask him what you need to do to show that you are willing and able to edit productively. Follow any guidance he gives. If at any time the blocking admin starts ignoring you or simply says "you won't ever get to come back," ask yourself why he may not want to unblock you. If you look in the mirror, you may see you haven't really changed, or haven't changed enough. If this is the case, start the clock over. If, on the other hand, it's just an admin unwilling to consider that you are trying to turn over a new leaf, submit an unblock request using the unblock template, but - and this is important - do not request unblocking. Instead, request communication with any admin willing to help you become a productive editor. Make a note that you've already attempted to contact the blocking admin but either he is ignoring you or he is unwilling to consider helping you, as the case may be. Expect any admin to try to talk to the blocking admin before unblocking you. At a minimum, it will be a few months before you are editing again: A few weeks for you to cool down, and anywhere from a week to a few weeks for you to analyze things and decide if you want to come back at all, and anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to work with an administrator enough that he's comfortable unblocking you.

Another alternative is to wait 1 year after your block and I'd say 6 months after your last edit of any kind then go through the exercise again. There seems to be something "magic" about a year - admins are more willing to take someone seriously if they say they are willing to play by the rules after a year than after a shorter period of time. Also, after a year, you can bypass the admins completely and appeal to the arbitration committee. They tend to be reasonable if it's obvious you are interested in the goodwill of the project and you are willing and able to edit accordingly, even if you have a checkered past. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I just thought "indefinite" meant forever. sorry again. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, it is forever because most people choose not to ask for reinstatement. I don't have numbers to back it up, but I suspect that in practice, most indefinate blocks are people who are here deliberately to make mischief, and I suspect many of them are "sockpuppets" of currently-blocked or -banned accounts. Personally, if it were up to me, there would be a "general forgiveness policy" that said for various "crimes," an community-ban-lift request would be granted X years after the last edit by the editor, including sockpuppets. For example, "disruptive editing" might be 1 year with a topic ban or after 2 years without, "harrassment" might be lifted after 1 year if it was relatively harmless or 5 years if it was deemed very harmful (i.e. led to job termination, suicide attempt, etc.). This wouldn't close the door on an earlier reinstatement, only say "after X years, your request will almost certainly be granted, contingent only on good behavior going forward." For indef-blocks that typically don't turn into a community ban, a similar rule-of-thumb guideline for administrators based on historical practice should be drawn up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y21 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nickelodeon 2 (US)[edit]

I have nominated Nickelodeon 2 (US), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon 2 (US). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]