User talk:Lord Grandus

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).

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

Request reason:

I am a very good editor here who keeps getting antagonized you should ban everyone who came to this talkpage because all they do is keep saying im a vandal and a troll when really i just want to build an encyclopedia with you guys editing wikipedia has been my lifelong dream and now you ruined it i think im gonna kill myself if you dont unblock me then the terrorists win and by terrorist i mean the people on this page other than me because there all rude and when an anon personal attacked me they didnt do shit but when i tryed to have a reasonable discussion with that anon then suddenly i was personal attacking apparently and i got banned what the hell this is so unfair

Decline reason:

I do not agree with your assertion that you are a very good editor. Your are blocked (not banned) for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Having looked at all of your edits, and having read your unblock request, I wholeheartedly agree with the blocking admin. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:04, 9 April 2016 (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.

April 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Mistletoe and Wine (album). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Grandus, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Im gonna write a draft for a really good Grandus article and then we can put it up okay -A humble priest from the holy church of Grandus (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Stonehenge Kick"

Stonehenge Kick, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person\, group of people\, band\, club\, company\, organization\, or web content\, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. NottNott talk | contrib 18:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that article is about the kick used by Grandus to fight Decepticons and even Unicron and lets be honest how is it NOT relevant -A humble priest from the holy church of Grandus (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How am i even vandalizing i made an article about the Stonehenge Kick tha Grandus uses when he fights decepticons I dont see how im vandalizing your being really unfair right now -A humble priest from the holy church of Grandus (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Stonehenge Kick. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

okay sorry -A humble priest from the holy church of Grandus (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Help desk. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:142.105.159.60. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come that anon didnt get in trouble when they personal attacked me at Talk:Stonehenge Kick they called me a troll but you didnt ban them why -A humble priest from the holy church of Grandus (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were trolling. You said something on that article's talk page about how the article shouldn't be deleted because it being deleted would make people become stupid (or something along those lines), and you brought up something completely irrelevant from the book Fahrenheit 451. That's very obvious trolling, and any admin can look at the history of the deleted talk page and see exactly what I'm referring to. Then you personally attacked the anon by referring to them as a jerk when it was not called for at all. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said the anon was personal attacking me and also if youve read Fahrenheit 451 its about how without knowledge people are stupid and easily controlled and by deleting the article Stonehenge Kick you are taking away knowledge and making people stupid so that the government can control them easier so basically by deleting te article Stonehenge Kick you are allowing the government to take over our lives. -A humble priest from the holy church of Grandus (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Music1201 ^talk 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Lord Grandus

A tag has been placed on User:Lord Grandus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]