User talk:ValuedContributor

test lol

Speedy deletion nomination of My Comical Bromance[edit]

A tag has been placed on My Comical Bromance, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it is a useless redirect

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. smt cha hal 06:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I defy you to give me a single good reason why this should be considered a vandalism-only account. In the short time this account has existed, I have done all of: Create a redirect page somebody deleted due to lack of necessity, un-orphaned an article on a piece of experimental military equipment, fix a spelling mistake on an article about a school in Southern California, and bicker with an established user about some trivial information in the Ted Bundy article. Apparently the "last straw" was inquiring about why you gave me a vandalism warning! You have my edit log in front of you; you don't have to take my word for it. Just unblock me, for real. ValuedContributor (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unless you can give us a sensible reason for the highly offensive edit summaries which you have affixed to a number of your edits.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:49, 28 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

In some instances where an edit summary would have been unnecessary I simply typed something goofy into that field. Can you, or rather the blocking administrator, give me a sensible reason as to why I was not warned that this would not be tolerated? You still haven't addressed the points in my unblock request. Please don't block my talk page access. I won't continue to issue requests if it's clear the administrators won't budge.

Decline reason:

Given that your previous account was the charmingly named User:Rapeisnotacrime, and that your edit summaries are gross, obnoxious, racist, and hateful, I can't see how allowing you to edit here would help Wikipedia in the least. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:42, 28 March 2013 (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.

Don't forget SensualIntracourse (talk · contribs). And now we have the latest sock whose name is unacceptable. I'll file a CU SPI request to check if there's more. Doc talk 22:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]