User talk:Ananagram

November 2013

Hello, I'm Some jerk on the Internet. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Christianity because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With that name, you're a dead cert for adminship.Ananagram (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Ananagram! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Islam with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 00:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Ananagram. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ross Hill (talk) 01:10, 5 Nov 2013 (UTC) 01:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Same-sex marriage

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Also, defacing talk posts from other users, especially those attempting to help you, is considered in bad taste. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Batman, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Walter de Coutances with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Atheism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clearly not being here to edit constructively. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. John Reaves 03:42, 4 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I have done nothing to deserve being blocked. I have edited the wikipedia page on atheism to define what the word "atheism" actually means. That's the total opposite of "not being here to contribute to building the encyclopaedia. On review, the block reason is insufficient for me being blocked. I demand an unblock or at least a valid reason for why I have been blocked, despite my many helpful edits.Ananagram (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am having trouble locating the "many helpful edits" you refer to. On the other hand, I had no trouble whatsoever finding many unhelpful, combative edits including point-of-view pushing in articles, nasty unhelpful comments on talk pages, and even outright vandalism, so I find myself in full agreement with the blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 4 December 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.

On review, the block reason is insufficient for me being blocked. I demand an unblock or at least a valid reason for why I have been blocked, despite my many helpful edits.Ananagram (talk) 19:09, 4 December 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).

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

Request reason:

you can't ban me without a valid reason. You link me to a wikipedia essay on things to avoid when editing wikipedia, but you don't ive me a valid block reason. You can't block people without providing a valid reason for blocking them. I'll deadmin you, you stupid fuck.Ananagram (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 5 December 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]