User talk:ToxicWasteGrounds

Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kassler, J.S.P.S.

I have removed your speedy delete tag from this article as it doesn't appear to be a hoax. the article originally included links to amazon and goodreads, and a google search turns up book reviews, just none by reliable sources that I can find, thus my prod tag. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiDan61 RfA

It's generally better form not to transclude an RfA before the candidate has a chance to accept the nomination. Have the had the opportunity to ask if the editor wishes to be nominated?--~TPW 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for the thought, but I have no interest in becoming an admin. As many have pointed out, I tend to be a deletionist, and while I don't see anything wrong with this (I like to keep the project clean), this is not a non-controversial position. I prefer to continue chugging along tagging articles when I see a problem, or fixing them when I think they can be, but with the safety net of other admins behind me. So, if you wouldn't mind, please do whatever is necessary to close the RfA. Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like the record of the RfA to remain or would you like me to delete it for you under CSD G7? It's entirely up to you. Also, just for reference, it's usually a good idea to talk to the candidate before you create an RfA (unless you know they're up for it) and it shouldn't be transcluded until they've signed to accept it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It has already been deleted as WikiDan61 had declined. ToxicWasteGrounds 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. My compliments on being brave enough to nominate someone, though- it's not something I've ever done and don't plan on doing any time soon ;) Btw, I've seen you around- you're obviously doing good work, keep it up! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition :) Regards, ToxicWasteGrounds 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (like 4 of them) Hi ToxicWasteGrounds, I have deleted the RfA. The reason I deleted it is that if WikiDan61 should want to run for RfA in the future it would be considered his first time running. In the future please do not create an RfA for someone else you are nominating until they have indicated that they will accept a nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#To nominate someone else for further details. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 16:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I may wish to note, when notifying someone about an RfA, make a new section as User:Moutray2010 now thinks I made it for him. ToxicWasteGrounds 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanx

i noticed it but i didnt kno how to change it but thanx for the alert atleast. Pope132 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) After 4 days and 10 edits, you will be able to move pages so if you make that kind of mistake again, then you can correct it. Keep up the good work :) Regards, ToxicWasteGrounds 16:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

how did u even kno that i made that article that fast? Pope132 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Special:NewPages. As a new pages patroller, I monitor the newly created pages and decide whether they need improvements, fixing or if they're just plain trash. ToxicWasteGrounds 16:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

is mine ok. or do i need to make some changes to it?Pope132 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's ok. ToxicWasteGrounds 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

HI

I am grateful for your nomination and wish to humbly accept this .

kind regards ,

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moutray2010 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

How in this SPI I'm not related to GEORGIE but in this one I am? I am not GEORGIEGIBBONS at all because if I was then I would have been found out in the 1st SPI.

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block. Your only recourse is to convince the blocking admin, by e-mail, that he is wrong. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Oh, there are alternate means. However, emailing me won't do any good; I went purely by technical evidence, and, given that you edit from a very dynamic DNS range -- at most a dozen or two on each IP -- and given that an account claiming to be the vandal in question signed on on one of those IPs within minutes of your last edit on that IP, it's highly unlikely that my checkuser analysis is incorrect; other checkusers may wish to double-check, but I'm done with this one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)