User talk:Darcyhunt

Hi

I've lifted what I believe to be the autoblock that was affecting you. However, your edits seem to be disruptive. Please review our policies, listed above. If you continue making disruptive edits, it's likely that you'll end up blocked. I'm hoping that if I give you this chance, you'll make more constructive edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Daniel Hocking[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Daniel Hocking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please create the page if you believe the person is notable. An infobox doesn't make a page complete. You have to quote reliable sources in the text, not in the Talk page.Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Poshzombie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dan Hardy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

Speedy deletion nomination of Goat-Legging[edit]

Hello Darcyhunt,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Goat-Legging for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Ferret-legging.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have broken probably several rules copying the text without quoting your source. If you continue, you may be blocked.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits[edit]

The majority of your edits has been desctructive. Please learn what the Wikipedia is. You have removed our useful Welcome message.

If you continue your hoaxes or jokes you'll be blocked.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of block[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because I did vandalise a page. I will admit I did it and it was against the rules. However, the vandalism was only a minor exaggeration of the truth and not worthy of a block. Furthermore, I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia and it would be unfair to punish me for one insignificant issue when I have done far more good than bad.

Decline reason:

You've done far more harm than good. Even if the balance had been the other way, that would still be grounds for leaving you blocked. Yamla (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2018 (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 leave the decision to accept or decline this unblock to another admin, but I'ld like to comment on your statement. "One insignificant issue" was the creation of a totally made-up story, Toad Suck Tug-of-War Finger Disaster, a totally made-up tradition Goat-Legging, a heavily exagerated page Daniel Hocking (presumably the "minor exaggeration you refer to), another minor exaggeration at Mitchell Labbett... Your other edits include lots of vandalism like this bit. Looking at your first edits, you were already vandalising back then[1][2]. Fram (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been cruelly blocked in abuse of power by admin. The page in question; Toad Suck Tug-of-War Finger Disaster, is a real event which really did happen if the references were bothered to be looked at. The only reason this was declared vandalism and a hoax is because I named it a humorous name. Whilst to admins the block against me has not affected you in any way I am distraught and the distrust that has been placed in me has resulted in significant detriment to my mental health. I will not be letting this cruel act go and ask that again that my block be lifted. I have significant amounts of knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia and whilst I have done small amounts of harm I am more than capable of doing good. Lifting this block would be of benefit to everybody; my mental health, Wikipedia and therefore the world and of course you; the admins for you can have piece of mind that you have done a good thing. I beg for another chance and give my word that I will not co tin to do harm. I am a huge fan of wikipedia and understand the importance of the banning policy but also am desperate to make a contribution to the Wikipedia community. Furthermore, the past review was denied due to prejudiced exaggerations of the truth by Fram, I ask that the manipulative words of this user be disregarded. Thanks.

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block currently restricting my editing is no longer necessary for I understand the reasons the block is in place and no longer wish to cause damage and disruption. If I am allowed to edit I will instead make useful contributions. I apologise for my actions.

Decline reason:

I'm not seeing this at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2018 (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 are clearly just trolling at this point. I've revoked your talk page access to prevent you wasting any more of our time. Another admin will be along shortly to review your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]