User talk:Admiinship is no big deal

My concern about your username (Admiinship is no big deal)

Hello, Admiinship is no big deal, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at WP:RFC/NAME. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! Telly addict 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Telly addict 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it would be best as they are not supposed to contain the word Wikipedia or any other Wikmedia Foundaton as it says in WP:USERNAME, also your username leads to the actual page about adminship not being a big deal, could you direct it to your actual userpage. To request a name change list it at WP:CHU and a b'crat will do it soon for you. Happy editing! Telly addict 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Please don't add "blocked" messages to user talk pages unless you have blocked the user in question. You recently added such a template to User talk:Liamsmyth but the user hadn't been blocked at that stage.-- Waggers 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for trolling. Viridae ^Talk 12:11, 4 April 2007 (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).

Admiinship is no big deal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please provide the edits that motivated the block

Decline reason:

No reason to unblock offered. Please use the talk page normally to communicate with other editors. Deiz talk 12:27, 4 April 2007 (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).

Admiinship is no big deal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

accused of trolling. I will commit to a rename but blocks for trolling are rearely lifted

Decline reason:

Unblock already rejected.

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.

You are highly unlikely to be unblocked without explaining your edits and making some very positive noises about your future behaviour. Deiz talk 12:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected this page for 24 hours. If you're serious about contributing, calm down and give us some very good, thought out reasons to unblock you at that time -- in particular, what areas of Wikipedia would you like to contribute to? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2007 (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).

Admiinship is no big deal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

okay, I'm ready to have another go. I agree to edit mainspace only for now.

Decline reason:

Bye PowerRangerBuster.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 7 April 2007 (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.