User talk:DoodleHammer

Re:Wiki treasure hunt[edit]

Thank you for telling me that your wiki treasure hunt is a "serious compition," but with all due respect it must be treated as a joke, and any edit made to the article space that is related to it must be reverted as quickly as possible, to make sure that those who participate will not be able to see them, and thus preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. Please be aware that, should you revert edits made by wiki editors aimed at erasing your clues, you may be blocked from editing altogether.

Thank you for your understanding. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing encyclopedic about a "wiki treasure hunt," making edits having to do with something like that to pages on en.Wikipedia will be taken as a kind of spamming and moreover will swiftly bring up other worries, hence they'll be swiftly deleted. Please don't do anything like this again or you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wiki Treasure Hunt[edit]

A tag has been placed on Wiki Treasure Hunt 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocked[edit]

Since you carried on adding pages about your contest after being warned not to do this, I have blocked you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Blocked[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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinatly by Gwen Gale (see above) for starting, and continuing a compition for fellow Wikipedians, and wish to plead my case for why this is unjust. Firstly I would say that, will it would be nice if the block was lifted completely, I can't complain about it - I was warned not to continue, and I did. While I realise this was wrong, and am sorry I did it, I totally accept that I should be punished. What I do think was unfair was that I was indifinatly blocked. Now I may misunderstand this, but I believe this means I have essentially been permantly blocked, and that the only way to gain back my editing priveledges is to convince an editor to reverse this desicion. There are two reasons I think this should happen. Firstly, I have done some reaserch, and it seems to me that before a user is indefinatly blocked they set period of time blocking (i.e. 6 months). I was not given this. More importantly, given my reputation is at stake, I object to the reason I was blocked according the Gwen Gale - that my account is one used solely for vandalism and/or spamming. This is not true. I have made several valid contributions (to several of the Wotten Brothers pages, the South Island of NZ, AUT).

Decline reason:

I'll address your points in order: (1) Yes, you were given plenty of warning, so the block should not have come as a surprise. (2) Blocks are not punishment, they are prevention, i.e. to stop you from continuing your disruptive editing. (3) Your research is faulty; there is no requirement for a short block prior to an indef block. And (4) You made the choice to ignore the warnings so if you feel that your Wiki-reputation is damaged, it is solely your responsibility. —Travis ^talk 02:45, 28 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

N.B. I'm not acctually looking to get unblocked, I would just like some questions answered (preferably by Travis)-though if you aren't Travis could you please read his post above before reading mine. Travis (or anyone else following this), Firstly I want to say that, while I disagree with your decision and feel the punishment (which it is) is a bit harsh, I know that you are only trying to protect Wikipedia, which is good. I would like to query where you say my research is faulty – could you please provide an example, and explain of where it was faulty, and, if possible how I could have rectified it. I also have a question around this blocking – once the block on the IP address that I’m using runs out (later today), will I be allowed to create another account if I follow the rules? Please don’t block the whole IP address, as there are other people who use it (and while I doubt any of them are signed up to Wikipedia, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for their blocking as well.) Cheers --DoodleHammer (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you have questions and aren't looking to get unblocked, please don't use the unblock template. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:38, 28 April 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.

A couple of answers for you: The faulty research I refer to from your first unblock request, "I have done some reaserch, and it seems to me that before a user is indefinatly blocked they set period of time blocking (i.e. 6 months)." If you read that somewhere, please point it out to me because there is no such requirement in our blocking policy. Secondly, if you create another account, it will be viewed as block evasion, and will, in all likelihood, result in the new account being blocked as well as undermining your case for unblocking of this account. —Travis ^talk 10:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, which in itself is not a worry. You're not being punished, you're being stopped. Indefinite is not forever. If you say you'll never do anything like this again (spamming project pages with "wiki-contests" and whatnot), won't vandalize and will follow this private website's policies and guidelines, I'll unblock you now. If you're unblocked and stray again, you'll be swiftly reblocked. It's all up to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to the three above comments 1) Daniel, I’m sorry about using this box inappropriately, but I tried leaving the same message without such a box for a fair while, and nobody was answering my queries, whereas when I had previously used it somebody replied in 15 minutes or so. Sorry about this, I know I shouldn’t have done it, and it won’t happen again. 2) Travis, I explained what I meant very poorly here (I think I accidentally missed out a few words or something) – I didn’t mean Wikipedia HAD to set a shorter ban before indefinite banning as a matter of policy, but that in the past this seemed to have happened (see pages on blocked users). Also if nobody unblocks my account, and I not allowed to set up a new one, is there any way I can get back on the site? 3) Gwen Gale, while I still think that the Wiki Treasure Hunt would be a fun and worthwhile event for Wikipedia to allow to take place, (and I would just point out that lots of pages are similarly unencyclopaedic – the 1000 things not to write about, or the Wikipediaholic test) but I understand that it is not my choice and that this site has rules that I have to follow. Therefore if you would unblock me I will try my hardest to not cause anymore upsets. I hope you will give me one more chance. (P.S. I still think its a punishment, but I also think debating this point is a waste of time).

Cheers

--202.73.206.140 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to log in as DoodleHammer and agree straightforwardly that you won't make any more posts having to do with contests or games of any kind, other than writing articles within the bounds of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is this good enough: I agree not to deliberatly break the rules of Wikipedia, including not creating, or writing about any contests, competitions or games that I have created.

Thanks once again for reveiwing this and sorry once again for the inconvenience I have caused.

--DoodleHammer (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You've said you'll try to follow the rules and moreover, won't try to launch or flog any games or contests on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Proposed deletion of Mark Harlan[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mark Harlan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability standards not met. Unable to verify claims.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Regi Wooten[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Regi Wooten requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]