User talk:Timo3

Archives

Deletion request[edit]

Hi,

I've declined your request to delete this user talk page as user talk pages are almost never deleted - they're needed to be kept to provide a history of the account's actions. If you're merging from another abandoned account, I suggest you simply copy the content from the old one with an edit summary something like "Copied from...xxx". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1[edit]

Hi Timo3, I noticed that you are probably attempting to start a poll about what the pages 1 to 100 should be moved to. However, it should be up to the closer of the first RfC to decide how to proceed, including decisions about templates, etc. Since the first RfC has not concluded, the poll will probably confuse some editors, and I suggest you close or remove the poll. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your poll for now. I suggest can be reactivated if the first RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not speedy-delete number pages[edit]

You recently placed {{db-g6}} templates on pages 0, 1, 2 and 3, which I reverted. The second RfC on Talk:AD 1 is not closed yet. Besides, the right approach would be to move those pages to 2 (disambiguation) and friends. Deleting them would lose the revision history! — JFG ^talk 15:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to pass a message on[edit]

Timo, could you tell the editor called "Gladysco ball" that I have posted a message to her on her talk page? Since you are her brother, I assume you are able to do this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will tell Gladysco ball. Timo 3 13:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've unblocked her account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[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).

Timo3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Gladysco ball and User:Liz Wiz are my sisters. User:Bobby Jacobs was an account I created for a clean start. Timo 3 11:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is incorrect. Bobby Jacobs (talk · contribs) doesn't qualify under WP:CLEANSTART, as that requires you to stop editing under this account. Instead, you continued editing using this account, too, and in the same general areas. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (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.

Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs[edit]

I used both of my accounts Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs in Talk:AD 1#11 to 100. Some people in the discussion might have believed that Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs were different people, but they are actually the same person. That is very funny! Timo 3 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example where JFG believed that we were different people because he pinged both Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs.

From Talk:AD 1#11 to 100:

@Wbm1058, Laurdecl, Certes, Timo3, and Bobby Jacobs: Would we have local consensus that titles 1…10 hold number articles (done), 11…100 would hold dab pages (in progress) and 101…2099 hold years (unchanged)? It's true that the original RfC didn't clearly specify what to do with titles 1…100 after years are moved to AD 1…AD 100. Some pages still have a mix of number properties and dab entries, e.g. 52 (disambiguation) and 52 (number), I suppose we can fix that as we go. Where do we put uses of each number, e.g. 52 is the number of cards in a standard deck? I think it makes sense to keep those at the number article. Dab pages should only have entries about things that are called by this number. We don't call a card deck a "52", so that's just a use, but 52 Pickup is the name a card game, so it belongs in the dab page (unless it gets deleted per WP:PTM). Makes sense? — JFG ^talk 22:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are the same person! Timo 3 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Timo3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cannot believe that this happened. I used multiple accounts for more than a decade without being caught. I was actually about to stop using the other accounts. I am surprised that my sockpuppets finally got discovered after all these years. I did not know that it was going to end this way. Timo 3 14:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, yes, you trolled us all, we applaud your amazing lulz and crown you King of the Internet. Now be a good chap and bugger off back to 4chan so the grown-ups can get on with building an encyclopedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:10, 11 October 2017 (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.