User talk:Tooj12

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Ohnoitsjamie, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dust Filter (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Nerd. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Nerd was changed by Tooj12 (u) (t) deleting 14016 characters on 2008-02-26T22:55:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Geek, you will be blocked from editing. Dust Filter (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Ohnoitsjamie, you will be blocked from editing. Dust Filter (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Image:Geek117.jpg. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of TOOJ 117

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on TOOJ 117, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because TOOJ 117 seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting TOOJ 117, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (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).

Tooj12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't do anything

Decline reason:

You're noticed from the Wikipedia community. So, don't try to act innocent. — Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:06, 26 February 2008 (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).

Tooj12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't deserve to be blocked

Decline reason:

This account does deserve to be blocked, as a sockpuppet of User:Tooj117. — Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (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).

Tooj12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a new user. I don't understand the reason for my block.

Decline reason:

I'm sure you are. Blanking pages and spamming them with an image. Not a new user. — Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:38, 27 February 2008 (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 edit was made by the account User:Tooj117, and [1] your very first edit was related (directed toward the same user). You aren't fooling anybody. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (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).

Tooj12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't trying to vandalize.

Decline reason:

Your contributions say enough. — Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:22, 27 February 2008 (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.