User talk:Completelyoverit

you are now on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hello, Completelyoverit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! See my talk page for my reply to your request. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Dallas Lovato has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. иιƒкч ? 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who in blazes are you? why do you care about the article about Dallas? can you get you and your buddies to stop messing around with this article? k, thanx.

An active AFD is in progress. Why do you keep removing the template? Eeekster (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I notice you keep removing the AfD tag against advice and policy. There are really three choices here: 1) You get blocked 2) the page gets locked or 3) you leave to tag alone while the debate is ongoing. I would prefer you to pick option 3. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there WAS NO AfD in place and I fixed the article. how did Eek and the other user get all of you crazies in on this? do you guys hate Demi or the other Lovatos? sorry, I will not allow this.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas Lovato. To be fair someone should have already notified you about the AfD, and the risk of blocking. Still, now you know. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"still now I know?" what kind of crazy and nonsensical talk is that? nothing fair or right about it. what I see is that Eek didn't want to lose and so risked incurring some wrath by submitting it for an AfD. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Dallas Lovato. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

Due to repeated removal of the {{afd}} tag from the Dallas Lovato article, even after being warned to stop it, I have blocked your account for 24 hours. This conduct is considered to be a kind of vandalism, per the policy under "Avoidant vandalism"

Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.

You have received several warnings to stop doing so, but have persisted in continuing with it. Although removing the warnings from your talkpage is permitted, it does not invalidate the warning. I am afraid that blocking is now needed as the last resort in order to prevent the AFD tag from being removed yet again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not warned! that person was NOT an admin. plus all of you are incompetent. now, I am willing to discuss this with you on Skype or another im. otherwise I am going to seek your removal from Wikipedia. you have a choice I suppose.

I am not a new user. I have been on this site longer than you and many others. you guys are so unaware of how to apply Wikipedia principles and rules.

You were warned. [1] [2]. You removed the warnings. [3][4] It is OK to remove warnings and notices from your talkpage, but is not OK when you fail to heed them. Threatening to "remove" someone from Wikipedia is not going to help your case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are you stupid? warned? by a NONadmin. get your facts together! furthermore quit being wimpy and let me talk to you on im. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would be advised to desist with the personal attacks. Any editor is entitled to inform another user about policy, and if you have a credible argument for being unblocked, you should normally make it here. See Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

advised? SORRY, buddy. normal? there is nothing normal about you. you should never have become an admin and trust me I am going to have you removed soon. am I to understand that you are going to "troll" the Wikipedia site and look for people who aren't that important and delete their pages? it would take years to do that and you will raise the ire of tens of thousands of people. I can't and won't allow it. really, you guys are being pretty awful. I have been quite willing to prove it also. I get nothing but childish attitudes though. I FIXED the article in question. this is nothing more than a "one person vendetta" by Eek. sorry, not going to permit it. do what you want. you shall not prevail however. again, I ask to talk to you on im (messenger). Completelyoverit (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins may issue warnings just as administrators may. They lack the tools to actually block, but if you fail to heed warnings from them, they may report you for inappropriate behavior as was the case here. I do not use Skype or the like, so I cannot help you there. Blocks can be appealed, but your tone here ("are you stupid?", "quit being wimpy", "all of you are incompetent", "I am going to seek your removal from Wikipedia") is not going to evoke any sympathy with me or anyone else. Your block expires tomorrow, and if you have good arguments for keeping the article, you may then participate in the AFD discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appeal? to people who are both incompetent and unable to have a coherent conversation. I asked for that and was refused. go back and check the facts, simpleton? and to Sj, whoever you are!! listen, either go get an instant messaging service, quite easy to do. OR I will give you my email address and let's hash this out. I am completely over it. I am done with the moronic behavior exhibited on Wiki and have decided to bring it back to normalcy. so there. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, Eek contacted you guys somehow! and it wasn't on Wikipedia. that is collusion at best. you guys are really not interested in fairness or anything else! no, I won't apologize for trying to fix up something that is almost totally messed up beyond belief. you people have overrun this site with foolishness. the games are now on! by that I mean your games are over and the world (society) wants its site back. go play somewhere. maybe in your own personal sandboxes? no one really cares about how many good articles you have or the number of edits. GET a life. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it should be pointed out that Eek is controversial. this user decides to go around and be willy-nilly in the sense of trying to delete articles. I am not saying all articles are worthy of being on the site. I am saying, however that Eek obviously has agendas and quite probably does not really understand concepts such as what is newsworthy or notable or of general interest. also it is clear that any user could seek to be controversial and clearly that is what Eek happens to be. just stop!! try to be a normal and average user, which is clearly at the limit of your abilities anyway. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has mechanisms in place for reporting inappropriate conduct for administrator intervention. In this case it was through this notice on WP:AIV. No secret communication took place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look, what is so hard about letting me email you? I am interested as much as you seem to be in maintaining a great site. I don't even mind if there is somewhat "secret communication" BUT there is a major problem in the fact that admins will not allow users to contact them. nothing is accomplished in this back and forth baloney. if I can talk to you in real time, we could accomplish something. and sorry, but Dallas is somewhat notable. furthermore we aren't going to have you and whoever going around deleting 20 thousand articles about entertainers, athletes, whoever else because they didn't win Oscars. so SORRY, it won't happen. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also I just noticed that Eek is super sensitive to "vandalism". maybe this particular user does not even know what it is? Completelyoverit (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly, if you go look at Eek's talk page and contributions there tends to be defiance, ignorance of basic facts regarding importance issues, inability to understand basic editing practices, etc. also Eek has shown a kind of obstinance and general unpleasantness. I repeat I will probably not allow this user to conduct themselves this way. Completelyoverit (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not giving you my e-mail address, because given the tone you are using here, I think such communication would be hate-mail, and I don't want that. Communication via your talkpage is sufficient for me to understand what you want and what you think. Let me warn you: At present your postings on this talkpage are very clear breaches of the civility and no personal attacks policy. Further abuse of your ability to edit this talkpage will result in that ability being removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

listen up, Sj, are you going to let me show you that you are wrong? first, I offered you my email address. then you could email me. second, you are wrong about the "attacks". being "fed up" with incompetence on this site is justifiable. you guys see vandals where there is only a desire to bring back some civilized behavior. we aren't all 4 Chan people. some of us have much more education than you will ever have. are smarter than you will ever be. have connections. are unwilling to let you do what you dang well please.

also, tone? have you heard of satire? I don't believe in hate mail. no, talk pages are the downfall of this site. they are a tool for you to do what you want. and no, we don't all have IRC or want to have it. not even all computer operating systems have it.

warning? there were no warnings issued. a "vandal seeking-happy user" complained and no warnings were even issued. so you have demonstrated that you are completely incompetent. now, could we maybe start working towards addressing these topics? Completelyoverit (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is called discourse. you seek to use a form of censorship yet again. AND you never intended to let me email you to start with, so why pretend you did or that you have a modicum of fairness. I think you should study up on diplomacy, maybe it is a completely foreign concept to most of you. Completelyoverit (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dallas Lovato

A tag has been placed on Dallas Lovato, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, use my talk page to talk we can have a conversation there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]