User talk:Ascendah

Welcome

Hello, Ascendah, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Fai zan 06:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

It appears you haven't been warned about your probable vandalism, or at least edits with no potential value to Wikipedia.

Edits include

[1] False, unsourced, and irrelevant.
[2] and [3] If you were an established editor, it might be considered a jest. As you have not had previous contact with Blueboar (talk · contribs), it just appears nonsensical.
[4] Even if it made sense, it would be about the subject of the article, not about potential improvements in the article.
[5] repeated, after being deleted by the subject, as [6] Personal attack in the apparent form of a WP:Barnstar.
[7] Even if it were honest, which would require a suspension of thought processes, it would not sure any purpose in editing Wikipedia.
[8] On the face of it, it's a request for information to appear in the article. However, no one in their right mind, and probably very few not in their right mind, would think it relevant.

If you're not interested in improving the encyclopedia, please go away. The only reason I'm not blocking you as a vandalism-only editor, is that this edit is actually a minor improvement in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL — Ascendah (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Huon (talk) 14:39, 3 August 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).

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

Request reason:

It's true that I vandalized Faizan's page a while back - but in no way is my account a vandalism-only account, I made a few jokes here and there (Wayne Madsen's page for example) but apart from that, I have only contributed positively to Wikipedia - sometimes I have written things with a joking overtone, but these were always done in accordance with the rules, and were done to contribute further to particular articles. If you look at my contributions you will notice that apart from Faizan's and Wayne Madsen's page (as mentioned) I have only contributed positively, so my account is far from a vandalism-only account. Ascendah (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see a total of two contributions that are not either vile, useless, or both. So let's say a 95% vandalism only account. That suffices for a block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 3 August 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).

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

Request reason:

'Vile' is extremely over the top - whilst offensive, nothing I have ever posted was vile. And everything else served a purpose, and to say '95% vandalism' is an incredible exaggeration - and anyone looking at my contributions can see that the only somewhat offensive contributions I have made have been the offensive barnstar posted on Faizan's page and the offensive request for information on Wayne Madsen's page - apart from this everything has been purely contributory, and even positive, kind and good-natured. Why are you lying and personally attacking me in this way? I request that you unban me, please. :) Ascendah (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have looked at all of your edits. Only two could be described as positive; the remainder are either irrelevant, offensive or stupid. Wikipedia is not a site where humour is appreciated, and comments with a joking overtone, as you describe them, are viewed negatively.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:15, 4 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry and I won't vandalise people's pages again - my main intention was always to contribute to Wikipedia and I was immature in making those offensive remarks against people and/or pages - can I be unblocked, pretty please? =) Ascendah (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You obviously are not here to contribute in a positive manner. Please go find your lulz elsewhere.Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:59, 7 August 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 blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]