User talk:Tlb1000

Welcome!

Hello, Tlb1000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like The Herald (album), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Calaka (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Herald (album)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Calaka (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at The Herald (album)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with The Herald (album). If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of The Herald (album)

I have nominated The Herald (album), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Herald (album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Benea (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

I'm here to let you know of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation on this account and User:Boxcar90. You're free to make a comment as an accused party.

Also, on an unrelated note, please do not remove valid comments from deletion discussions, such as you did here. Such attempts to sway consensus are against policy and could get you blocked. Tim meh (review me) 15:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:57, 6 September 2009 (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).

Tlb1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why on earth have i been blocked?

Decline reason:

The series of warnings above are probably a good hint towards the answer you're looking for. This template is for requesting unblocking only. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 6 September 2009 (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.

(1) For creating ridiculous hoax pages and (2) for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:00, 6 September 2009 (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).

Tlb1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You still haven't explained whh and on what grounds I have been blocked. I do not know why my page was deleted as the info was true. I lost my temper on your talk page but that is very understandable considering the circunstances. You did not even give a justification instead the article was deleted with no clear consenus. That is surly against policy. Therefor the artilce should be reinstated and I should be unblocked as you have not justified why I have to be blocked other than saying hoax, which is untrue and does not even make sense.

Decline reason:

No, this is neither understandable nor acceptable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:18, 6 September 2009 (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).

Tlb1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find it absolutely hilarious that you still provide no justification for the deleting of the page and my block! I suspect it is because there is no reasonable justification that you can give, which explains why you are skirting around and avoiding the issue and ignoring the issue. Yet again, I ask, no tell, you to reverse the blcok since there is no reason why it is valid.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request indicates that you do not understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not your blog, a humor web site, or MySpace. You are blocked because you created an article which was not true, which harms the encyclopedia, because you continued recreating the article even after being asked to stop, and because you created inappropriate multiple accounts. An unblock is not appropriate, because there is no evidence that unblocking you will make the encyclopedia more accurate. It is only fair to warn you that excessive use of the unblock template sometimes results in the loss of the ability to edit your own talk page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:31, 6 September 2009 (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 waste our time anymore; you've been abusing multiple accounts to attempt to feign consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Herald (album), and that's enough to be banned forever. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used multiple accounts, you cunt

In my opinion, the use of personal attacks indicates that this user will not have any further need for access to this talk page. If anyone really wants to hear the rest of what this user has to say about vaginas, please feel free to restore her ability to edit this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keribon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]