User talk:Peoplesman55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stevo Maido[edit]

I have restored the article but it still may be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion. You will need to provide reliable independent sources for the claims - see WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. The searches I did:

didn't produce much - only Facebook and Twitter, which are not reliable sources. I would expect a notable band to produce far more than that. Meanwhile, I will check out with people who know more than me how significant the AIR Chart and Triple J are. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sources[edit]

"After a long battle with some guy at wikipedia I managed to convince him we are a real band" - actually, you only convinced me that if your claims were confirmed by a reliable source the band might be notable enough to have an article. But you haven't produced any sources, and the more I look the more I don't find anything but your Facebook page. I find it impossible to believe that a band with the achievements you claim, no. 1 singles and a released album, would not have some independent comment online, and I am seriously wondering whether the whole thing is a hoax. So I'm nominating the page at WP:Articles for deletion - formal notice below - which will get opinions from others. The discussion will last seven days, and then another admin will decide. You are welcome to give your opinion, and to edit the article if you have sources to add. JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Stevo Maido[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Stevo Maido meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevo Maido. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Sources are you after and I'll find them for you?

Well, to show the sort of thing required, look at the references in the article on Calling All Cars (band) - this one confirms who really opened for AC/DC and this one shows who was really AIR Mover of the week for 24 March, 2010. Goodbye. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well once a website announces The Aus and NZ dates for Iron Maiden are announced with Stevo Maido opening il put that up
Hello, Peoplesman55. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peoplesman55. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is a egregous attack [[1]] Stop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per my warning I ghave reported this as a vandalism only account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. – B.hotep •talk• 08:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add to the above, since I was on my way here to do exactly what my colleague Bubba hotep has just done... this is not cool, and neither is this. In the first instance you attacked a fellow editor ("comment on content, not on contributors" - we're all volunteers, here). In the second instance you removed referenced text from an article, and the entire "References" and "External links" sections, without explanation. Please — when your block expires contribute constructively and in a friendly manner. Disagreements are normal; dealing with them by attacking others or by trashing articles is not. TFOWR 08:30, 16 June 2010 (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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that I have been unfairly blocked. JohnCD had my article deleted for no reason. He then asked me to provide sources for the article which I did, then he just removed the sources and the article again

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  7  08:36, 16 June 2010 (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.

That rationale isn't going to work. You aren't blocked because of your sources, you are attacking a admin rather then ask why the sources won't work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I know why the sources wont work. He deleted them. And how is 'Fatso" attacking him? Its not racist or sexist at all

See we have a policy of commenting on the content not the contributer. If he deleted them it was likely for a good faith reason. I will be happy to enumerate why or why the sources aren't notable. Please feel free to post it here. I've written 80 articles here so I can help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to answer your question, "Fatso" would be an attack because it is name-calling. I was about to report you for a personal attack also but Hell in a Bucket managed to get there before me. If you want to re-create the article I would suggest that you read WP:RS. Finally, when you are unblocked please remember to be civil to other editors or you may find yourelf blocked again - maybe an even longer or an indefinite block --5 albert square (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Name caling, oh please. Hes a grown man at the age of 100 and should be able to take a little criticism

Okie doke then . Have fun with all of that it'll be a short trip I'm afraid. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short Trip?

You won't last long on this project if this is how you persist. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well all i can do is sit here and wait 24 hours so if i wasnt blocked i would be able to work on my article

I would try and find out why your article is being deleted. I strongly suggest you actually take the advice of a longer term user then rely on your own interpretation about policy. We can help you avoid pirfalls. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well JohnCD showed me some ways to improve my page, I went away and made the changes to improve the page. And he just reverted the changes back to the old one and then deleted it

bluntly you have to get over it. You need to start over and show me or another editor what you have. Once we see t we can concur or disagree with John. We need to see what you are insisting is corect. Post it here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, once you're unblocked I'd try and find out what was wrong with the changes you made. Any questions please feel free to ask me on my talk page --5 albert square (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the benefit of the non-admins who can't see the deleted article, it was, as JohnCD pointed out at the AfD, a partial copy and paste of Calling All Cars (band) complete with convenient name changes. If this user persists in perpetuating hoaxes on Wikipedia, the block length will no doubt be increased. – B.hotep •talk• 10:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no control over what their facebook says because I have nothing to do with the band. I have just seen their Gigs and I can tell they are going to go a long way
Well once they go a long way they will be able to have a article here. As it stands Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and if all you are basing a article on is a social website then John CD is absolutely correct that isn't substantial 3rd party coverage. Try reading WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Comment - you were blocked because of this and this. I let the first one go, but someone else saw the second. You don't seem to realise that your contributions log is a permanent record, so there's no point playing innocent. I will leave your unblock request for another admin to consider. JohnCD (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not going to deny it. But I don't see how I deserve to be blocked for 2 weeks for that. Maybe A day or two. But what i did isn't even insulting
Perhaps you should read these in the meantime: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Davtra (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them. And I beleive I have been blocked way to harsh for what I did.
You were blocked once for making a personal attack. And you did it again. If you don't refrain yourself from making these comments, the block duration will increase. Davtra (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked the first time for calling him one word which he actually found quite funny. This time I didn't even insult him
Making those types of comments may be funny to you but not to other editors. If you don't know how to be polite and continue making these comments, you will be on the road to an indefinite block. Davtra (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John himself said he found it funny
"In real life this would be ignored?"? Really? If you walked up to someone's garage door and spray painted "I am fat and lonely, please help" it would be ignored? If you paid $50 and bought a classified ad in your local newspaper that said "My name is John XXXX ... I am fat and lonely", it would be ignored? What frickin' planet do you live on? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add this: you vandalized his userpage as a targetted attack because he RIGHTLY deleted a submission that you gave to Wikipedia to do with whatever they chose - it's not your article, it's the community's. Let me repeat: it was a targetted attack based on your misunderstanding of Wikpedia as a whole. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Sir would you like to tell me why it was 'RIGHTLY' deleted then?
why it was 'RIGHTLY' deleted? Because no one considered it worthy of keeping during the deletion discussion. (Despite being notified about the discussion, even you didn't speak up for the article you'd created). TFOWR 11:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Indef[edit]

4 hours of this has been enough - changed to indef based on feedback above.  7  11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I haven't done a single thing wrong. All i ask is what this ban is based on?
Simply put, your behaviour has shown that you are not able to work with others, which is a major problem on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If you truly don't see what the problem is, then WP:COMPETENCE may be an issue. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A indef may be a bit harsh. Maybe a six month or so ban would be better. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can I work with people if the only thing i am able to do is complain on my talk page. My fiance is now unable to even log into her account because our IP has been banned for nothing
You have already shown to us that you can't work with people. It appears you don't know what you have done wrong. Based on your responses above, if an administrator unblocks you, you will continue to make personal attacks, so why should an administrator unblock you? You can strongly convince an administrator that the block is no longer necessary (read Guide to appealing blocks and Appealing a block). Davtra (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2010 (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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand that what I did was wrong and fair enough I deserve to be blocked. But Only for a day or at most a week. I also see it rather unfair that my IP is banned because now my fiance is unable to edit pages from her account because of a stupid mistake I made

Decline reason:

I'm not comfortable modifying the block here, because whilst you say you understand you did wrong, the long discussion prior to this request shows the opposite. I don't think you really do understand how seriously we take our civility policies. You seem to feel as if you should be allowed to attack another editor and get away with a light slap on the wrist. This is a community project, and I don't feel your editing style is compatible with it. Taelus (Talk) 10:35, 22 June 2010 (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.

To extend on my decline reason: You seem to believe that you should get a 1-2 day block as "punishment". But that is not how blocks here work, blocks are preventative, not a punishment. Thus, as you do not reassure me that you will not simply resume your personal attacks when the block expires, I am not convinced that it should be modified from its current indefinate duration. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 10:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Block me as long as you like, but please unblock my IP so my fiancée can go on her account and edit things. This bann on me is extremely unfair on her.
Perhaps your fiance can apply to bypass the IP block (using her account) by making an unblock request, IP block exemption. Davtra (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2010 (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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I Truely do understand all your civil policies and I guarantee that I wont be attacking another member ever again. I would just like my IP unbanned so my fiance can edit her things. This is extremely unfair.

Decline reason:

I quote the user above "Perhaps your fiance can apply to bypass the IP block (using her account) by making an unblock request, IP block exemption. Davtra (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)" - I would suggest you advise her to do this. That way, your block stands as it appears users agree it should, and it covers the possibility of you telling porky pies. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:27, 22 June 2010 (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.

...and let me remind you: if your fiancée edits things on your behalf, that's called WP:MEAT. If she returns to editing, creating the same articles, or any similar form of harassment, she will be considered to be a WP:SOCK. If you personally ever use her account, it's WP:EVADE. All of the above will be met with the same fate: WP:BLOCK. So go ahead, have her sign onto her account that I assume must have been created some time ago, and she can post the appropriate unblock request there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll tell her to do that. Does she enter the request in her talk page?
Yes, she must enter the request on her talk page, using the same unblock request tag: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. She must state that she has been affected by a block and request an IP block exemption. Davtra 12:08, 22 June 2010 (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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now been blocked for over a week. I am aware of the severity of what I did wrong and it will never happen again. I would just like to be able to edit articles again and make good contributions. thankyou.

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.
  • Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
  • When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
    • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2010 (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.

If unblocked, what pages would you edit and how would you constructively edit those pages? -FASTILY (TALK) 06:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any pages that needed editing or ones that are Hoax pages and i'll nominate them for AfDPeoplesman55 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget that you're not permitted to remove declined unblock requests while you're still blocked? Are you trying to hide the attitude and activities related to your previous attempts at requesting an unblock? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not trying to hide them. But while they are still there I am never going to be unblocked because no one belives that I do understand what i have done wrong. Peoplesman55 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can they believe you? You haven't demonstrated it yet. "I know what I did wrong, and I won't do it again" is what children say when they don't know what they did wrong, but are trying to find the magic words that will get them unblocked. Adults explain specifically what they'll do differently in the future, so we can have some confidence that unblocking them will be good for the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am 19 so I basically still am a child, and I don't know how you want me to explain it. I made a mistake, simple as that. I am sorry
You do it by being specific- just like your high school English teachers taught you. Here's an example that doesn't apply to you: "I was blocked for adding false information about living people to articles. I really thought that Tom Cruise had come out as gay, so I thought it was okay to add that to the article. But now I've read the biographies of living persons rules, and I understand that I can't add information to an article, especially about a living person, without a source like a newspaper, magazine, or book. I can't find a source like that about Tom Cruise, so I won't try to add that to the article any more- I still think I can make the article about Tom Cruise better, though, because there was a long article in this week's Time Magazine about his career, and some really interesting facts in it that aren't in the Wikipedia article yet that I'd like to add- for example, that early in his career, he did several movie roles that he wasn't credit for that could be added to his filmography. If you unblock me, I'll add that, but I won't add anything I don't have a good source for." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i can see how detailed you want it. But I was banned for wrecking a guys personal page which was stupid and wrong, and I have learned never to do it again

Please Unblock[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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now been blocked for 3 weeks. I have found several articles that are in need of fixing but am currently unable to do so because of my Indef block

Decline reason:

Editor is not to request unblock until he has shown the community that he is here to actually improve an encyclopedia, as per the directions provided by User:Beeblebrox, and emphasized later. Once the article changes are posted as per the directions, only then should an unblock request be posted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 6 July 2010 (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.

If you can follow FisherQueen's unblock request example, that would be great. There would be a good chance you will be unblocked. Take some time to plan and structure your unblock request otherwise it would not go far.  Davtra  (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start I got blocked for editing another users personal page. Which was just plain stupid of me. But I have Identified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstruck_(film) as an article that needs work. The Plot section needs to be improved and I can do it because I have seen the movie atleast 10 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplesman55 (talk • contribs)
You were advised how to create a copy right on this page, and make the edits you were thinking of. Remember - plots are summaries, and many of our movie articles have far too long of summaries. Good luck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is my Plot summary for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstruck_(film).


The storyline concerns five friends from Sydney who are all big fans of AC/DC. After attending an AC/DC concert the 5 friends go to an after-party with the band, but get kicked out. Sonny and Rohnie find a poster of former AC/DC lead singer Bon Scott in an alleyway. The other 3 friends try to hire a taxi, but because Sonny and Rohnie take to long the taxi drives off. They then hear the taxi hit a pole and explode. The 5 friends then feel that Bon Scott saved their lives so they make a pact that if one of them died they would be buried next to the grave of Bon Scott at Fremantle. When Rohnie dies while being struck by lightning, the remaining four travel across the country to Fremantle (where Bon Scott's ashes were scattered) to scatter them over Fremantle Cemetery. The Four end up getting their with help of Rohnie's sister who wanted the four of them to help Rohnie achieve his dream and they scatter the ashes while playing AC/DC's hit song It's a Long Way To The Top.
If you want an even longer summary I can make one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplesman55 (talk • contribs)

This is YOUR homework - your ONLY manner to become unblocked. You were given clear instructions on how to copy the source of the original article here and make the changes that YOU think are actual improvements. They will be judged. If you're not going to bother either learning to sign your posts with ~~~~ or to actually follow the instructions, then none of us are going to be bothered to read and/or unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then
Original-
The storyline concerns five friends from Sydney who are all big fans of AC/DC. After a near death experience, the five make a pact that if one among them died they would be buried next to the grave of the late AC/DC frontman, Bon Scott. After one of them dies, the remaining four travel across the country to Fremantle (where Bon Scott's ashes were scattered) to scatter them over Fremantle Cemetery.

My one-
The storyline concerns five friends from Sydney who are all big fans of AC/DC. After attending an AC/DC concert the 5 friends go to an after-party with the band, but get kicked out. Sonny and Rohnie find a poster of former AC/DC lead singer Bon Scott in an alleyway. The other 3 friends try to hire a taxi, but because Sonny and Rohnie take to long the taxi drives off. They then hear the taxi hit a pole and explode. The 5 friends then feel that Bon Scott saved their lives so they make a pact that if one of them died they would be buried next to the grave of Bon Scott at Fremantle. When Rohnie dies while being struck by lightning, the remaining four travel across the country to Fremantle (where Bon Scott's ashes were scattered) to scatter them over Fremantle Cemetery. The Four end up getting their with help of Rohnie's sister who wanted the four of them to help Rohnie achieve his dream and they scatter the ashes while playing AC/DC's hit song It's a Long Way To The Top.Peoplesman55 (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, do you even take a moment to read the clear and helpful directions? I hate to sound overly bureaucratic here, but these instructions were given to you above:

  • Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
  • Read our guide to improving articles
  • Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
  • Click the Edit tab at the top of that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
  • Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =) and save the page before you improve it.
  • Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
  • When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

You have done absolutely NONE of the above. The changes you're proposing are not "significant and well researched". If this is the extent of your editing, and this is your best possible work, then I'm not sure whay you feel the need to have a Wikipedia account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



I suggest you remove the unblock request, and read piped link (it will tell you how to make links look friendly and nice) and the Manual of Style. The Manual of Style may be long, but it is worth reading it all, especially the grammar and punctuation sections. Take your time, read and apply these Wikipedia's standards to article below. There is no need to rush this process. Do you have research skills?  Davtra  (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, thankyou. And yes I have research skills.Peoplesman55 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. If you want to extend the article, you can research for information and add it to the article. The information must come from reliable sources and you must reference it. You can do this by using a citation template. It's easy to use. Just copy the code and fill in the blanks. Every Wikipedia article has references. You can look at how this is done by viewing the code.
Also get into the habit of filling in the edit summary for every edit you make. It's good practice. Read Edit summary. Doing so will help everyone to understand the intention of your edit. You can use the "Show preview" button to preview your edits and see what they look like (getting it "perfect") before submitting. This process may save some time (and you don't need to fill in the edit summary to correct mistakes).
I know this is a lot of information. Like I said, take your time.  Davtra  (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Thankyou very much :) Peoplesman55 (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstruck film[edit]

Thunderstruck
Directed byDarren Ashton
Written byDarren Ashton
Shaun Angus Hall
Produced byAl Clark
Andrena Finlay
Barbara Gibbs
Jodi Matterson
Bjorg Veland
StarringDamon Gameau
Stephen Curry
Ryan Johnson
Callan Mulvey
Sam Worthington
Release date
8 September 2004 (2004-09-08)
Running time
98 minutes
CountryAustralia
LanguageEnglish

Thunderstruck is a 2004 movie starring Stephen Curry (Ben), Damon Gameau (Sonny), Ryan Johnson (Lloyd), Callan Mulvey (Sam), and Sam Worthington (Rohnie). The title of the movie was taken from the AC/DC song of the same name Because one member in the film dies while being struck by Lightning.

Plotline[edit]

The storyline concerns five friends from Sydney who are all big fans of AC/DC. After attending an AC/DC concert the 5 friends go to an after-party with the band, but get kicked out. Sonny and Rohnie find a poster of former AC/DC lead singer Bon Scott in an alleyway. The other 3 friends try to hire a taxi, but because Sonny and Rohnie take to long the taxi drives off. They then hear the taxi hit a pole and explode. The 5 friends then feel that Bon Scott saved their lives so they make a pact that if one of them died they would be buried next to the grave of Bon Scott at Fremantle. When Rohnie dies while being struck by lightning, the remaining four travel across the country to Fremantle (where Bon Scott's ashes were scattered) to scatter them over Fremantle Cemetery. The Four end up getting their with help of Rohnie's sister who wanted the four of them to help Rohnie achieve his dream and they scatter the ashes while playing AC/DC's hit song It's a Long Way To The Top.


Reception[edit]

As of 23 May 2010, film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes assessed the film at 57% on its tomatometer with an average 5.3/10 rating.[1]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Thunderstruck (2004)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

External links[edit]

Unblock[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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel i am now ready to make valid contributions to wikipedia similar to the one above

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but what Tide rolls and BWilkins say is true. You still haven't demonstrated that you can improve an article. TNXMan 22:05, 2 August 2010 (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 have made an effort, that's good. However, I would advise that you remove your unblock request. I will not decline the request, but it will almost certainly be declined. The clear instructions left for you stated that you were to "Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies."
The tag at the beginning of the article indicates that citations are needed to verify the info in the article. You have added none. Additionally, the only changes I see were to correct an external link and to remove a translation. The last change could have actually been incorrect. I don't know how the film was billed in Germany so your removal may have been correct. In any event your changes are neither "significant" nor do they avoid the caveat against making "basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions;".
If you have questions about referencing information or citing the references properly, please ask. Good luck Tiderolls 11:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree - the intent was to show that you can research and fix the issues with an article that you had an interest in. This article still needs fixing...badly! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the post by Bwilkins leads me to clarify something in my message. I meant to say remove your unblock request and continue to work on the article. I will watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Tiderolls 11:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me anyone[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).

Peoplesman55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recently returned from an around the world trip with my wife to find out someone has blocked my account. Is there any way to undo this? thanks Tim Murphy \m/ Peoplesman55 \m/ 09:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The way I see it there are two possibilities:

Doesn't really matter which, as the result is the same either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2010 (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.

So you're saying I should just create a new account and link it to this one? \m/ Peoplesman55 \m/ 02:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
And also that certainly is not my signature \m/ Peoplesman55 \m/ 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone believes that your account really was compromised, so if you create a new account, you'll most likely be blocked for sockpuppetry. Especially if you make it obvious that you're the same user, for example, by connecting to this account, or making the same kinds of inappropriate edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well what else can I do since there is very little chance of me being unblocked on this account. I can assure you my account has been hacked and I am unsure of how or why. I just want it fixed ASAP \m/ Peoplesman55 \m/ 03:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It was the default signature that you have used since you first started the account - this brand new one that you have suddenly started using does not even meet the policies/requirements for signatures, which would have been brought to your attention much earlier. The concept behind WP:OFFER is that you have to be 100% honest, and that honesty is what might eventually lead to an unblock. You're lying, plain and simple. You're everything that Wikipedia is not about. Perhaps you would be better off on Uncyclopedia, because right now you're just wasting a lot of good, honest peoples' time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this wife the person who was your fiancee in June? Congratulations on the wedding! I hope the two of you will have a long and happy marriage. I also hope you don't treat her like you've treated Wikipedia- mistreatment, followed by lies- because that wouldn't be good for your relationship. After all, your marriage is way more important than Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peoplesman55&oldid=1139283672"