User talk:InvaderSora

Archive #2

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

please See before adding[edit]

If you add a comment saying i uploaded an image without copyright stuff, and it has it, i will delete it.
I am NOT interested in flame wars.
If you're just here to post something pointless, go away.

deletion[edit]

as far as I can tell, Christien Lorentzen has not been created or deleted, and Christian Lorentzen exists but appears not to have been deleted at any time (see here). Could you check the title that you are concerned about, and it would be very helpful if you can give the date and time of deletion so that I can see what has happened. jimfbleak 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC) It was a typo. >_> InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template for your archived talk pages[edit]

You may like placing this template on your archived talk pages: {{Talkarchive}} --Keesiewonder ^talk 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts (series)[edit]

Your recent addition of and reversion to information on Kingdom Hearts (series) has a few things that could be improved upon:

Spelling and grammar. Spell check is your friend, and incidentally the latest version of Firefox has a built-in spell-checker for text entry fields, which makes it even easier to spell-check your Wiki additions.
The spoiler warning. WP:SE editors have come to a consensus that spoiler warnings will not be used on pages that fall under the project, including Kingdom Hearts (series).
Speculation. "may be", "might be", these kinds of phrases mean that it isn't certain, and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we should only post facts, preferably with sources to prove those facts. In this case, until the next game is released, we won't know who those people are, so they shouldn't be mentioned until then. Save the speculation for fansites and fan-forums.

Just remember, be bold in editing Wikipedia, but but don't be reckless or careless about it. If your edits are being reverted consistently, post on the Talk page for the article in question instead of starting a revert war. Often, conflicts can be resolved much faster and more amicably this way. Anyway, thanks for reading! Nique talk 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning stubs and rumors[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Stub for more information about stubs. The subject of a stub article still needs to meet the basic criteria for inclusion. Stub or not, Wikipedia is not a place to put rumors as you have in Christine Lorentzen. If you have a source, then feel free to add verifable information, such as her Danish ancestry. — ERcheck (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely, as you've had enough chances and warnings to cease your edit wars and incivility. When you're ready to participate in the project constructively and civilly, place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. In the meantime, if you'd like to contribute at some point in the future, read the following first: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:OWN, and WP:3RR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 1 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

How was my Toa Mario account being abusive? i made USEFUL contribs. The uncicilty was because of everyone not reading my comments and me having to repeat myself over and over again. And i would prefer to keep my Toa Mario account, but whatever the admins want.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:SOCK. You are not permitted to create a new account to continue editing when another account has been blocked. — Yamla 21:09, 13 April 2007 (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 don't seem to understand. I MISREAD. I already acknowledged that i misread it and apologized. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not apologised for your blatant violation of WP:SOCK. I mean, right in your unblock request, you state that your abusive sockpuppet was not abusive. That doesn't sound like an apology to me. But you are free to use up your last unblock request if you believe some other admin will be convinced. --Yamla 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i did, on USer Talk: Toa Mario. The only "sockpuppet" was an accident because of misreading this talk page.InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe you did not understand that you aren't allowed to continue editing when your block has previously been extended twice for doing exactly this. And your statement above ("How was my Toa Mario account being abusive?") shows that you still don't accept that your account, Toa Mario, was abusive. But as I have said, you are free to use up your last unblock request if you truly believe for some strange reason that another admin will find your block unjust. --Yamla 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "abusive", so i would appreciate explination. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK. --Yamla 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why i must keep repeating myself. I misread the blocked indefinetly note and aplogized for making Toa Mario. 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and then you claim right here that that account, Toa Mario, is not abusive which is blatantly false as per WP:SOCK. Your apology rings hollow. --Yamla 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it was abusive. I didn't vandalize, i wasn't very uncivil.. eys, i brok 3RR once, but that's a hard rule to keep inforce. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I believe it would be totally inappropriate for you to be unblocked. You still don't understand WP:SOCK and the other policies you are violating. Anyway, I have nothing more to say to you. Use up your final unblock request if you believe you can convince another admin that you have reformed and truly understand WP:SOCK, [[WP:3RR], WP:CIVIL, etc. and will never again violate them. Or if you don't think you can convince another admin, please leave and come back when things have changed. --Yamla 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Done. ToaofCP 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling you making Toa Mari was a mistake. I have read the Sockpuppet thing. TOA MARIO WAS A MISTAKE!!! And if you can tell me what "come back" means, please do, because if that ends up being the result, i dont want any more "sockpuppet" stuff. The only other account i ever made was Toa MArio which was a MISTAKE. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 21:38, 13 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Mainly, read the conv. between em and Yamala above. I want to contribute usefully. And i do.And the insult and threat given to me by an admin over e-mail is not appreciated.

Decline reason:

This is not the first block for InvaderSora. Despite protests promising reform, this editor has continued disruptive behavior after blocks have expired. This editor's vehement denials of having violating Wikipedia policy indicate either a lack of understanding of how to be a Wikipedia contributor or a blatant decision to disregard the rules. — ERcheck (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2007 (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.

InvaderSora has repeatedly proven himself unable to comprehend the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Specifically, Wikipedia:Consensus eludes his understanding in its every facet. He has been blocked, while blocked, for the exact same reasons that got him blocked in the first place. He has demonstrated, through his long history of disruption that he is incapable of even the slightest correction of his ways. Perhaps, in time he will change, however as it stands, there is no reason to unblock this user for the foreseeable future. –Gunslinger47 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hsmgame.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hsmgame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NPLogo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NPLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Index.1.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Index.1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omgbatmanposter.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Omgbatmanposter.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Omgbatmanposter.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Omgbatmanposter.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neopets: Codestone Quest[edit]

The article Neopets: Codestone Quest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I could not find any independent source offering significant coverage of the subject, per WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Odie5533 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]