User talk:Horrifico/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome to my talkpage! Uh... I mean welcome to Horrorland, where nightmares come to life! Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)HorrificoWelcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Monster Blood for Breakfast!, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Even with a registered account, unreferenced plot summary for a non-notable text do not an article make. --EEMIV (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Although your passion for these Horrorland books is admirable, you need to stop and read WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:WAF. Much of what you have added fails to meet our notability, sourcing, and content guidelines. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --EEMIV (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Posting incoherent nonsense on another editor's page, and your restoration of non-notable, unreferenced material (regardless of how hard you worked on it) is disruptive editing and may lead to you being blocked. Articulate on these various book pages a rationale for why they are notable. --EEMIV (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "File talk:04- The Scream of the Haunted Mask.jpg"

A page you created, File talk:04- The Scream of the Haunted Mask.jpg, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Renaissancee (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "File:04- The Scream of the Haunted Mask.jpg"

A page you created, File:04- The Scream of the Haunted Mask.jpg, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Renaissancee (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

very very very very very very very, sorry

Decline reason:

I'm not certain you understand why you are blocked or are sincere in why you want to be unblocked. — MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will be sincere and leave you all alone. I will not ever bother you again. I promise.

Decline reason:

Then what's the problem with remaining blocked? —  Sandstein  13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Apologies that these are the circumstances of our first meeting, but I'm not sure that your userspace was an appropriate use of our community's resources, and I have deleted some of those pages. This might be a silly question, but if you have no plans to continue editing, why do you want to be unblocked? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

speedy

That a building is listed separately in the National Register is definitive evidence not just of mere significance, which is enough to pass speedy, but of actual notability, which is enough to pass afd and stay in WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Bradfield, Uffculme was obviously not spam, and as a Grade-I listed building, it not only has a claim of significance, but also it is notable. Furthermore, A7 does not apply to buildings. Please re-read the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging more pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Roza Miletić

She is well-known. Many prestigious Croatian media talked about her, Večernji list, 24 sata, Dnevnik Nove TV etc... She is well known in Croatia as well. --Wüstenfuchs 20:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of block request

Please note that you have been nominated for re-block due to possible on-going vandalism, e.g. in your request for rapid deletion of Bradfield, Uffculme, noted in the post 2 above to be totally unfounded, no reason given. Please make your response if any at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

review of John Krim article

You asked, in review at my Talk page, whether John Krim article was "advertising". Your review asked that I reply to your Talk page. No, I don't see how it could be: there is nothing to advertise, nothing to sell. I have no personal association with the article subject, for what that's worth. I think the article is okay as a starter article about a master craftsman who has done works recognized as significant in the U.S. National Register. Hope this helps. --doncram 13:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Tom Lemming which already has a specific stub template. It only wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Improper use of {{db-vand}}

Please remember to always assume good faith unless the circumstances blatantly show otherwise. ⁓ Hello71 13:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Signature

WP:SIG#Links: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." ⁓ Hello71 14:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User pages are not articles

... and are not eligible for deletion under WP:PROD or article-only criteria in WP:CSD. ⁓ Hello71 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mumps

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Your move was ill advised and I have reverted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

156.110.82.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Raueseixas1234567890". The reason given for Raueseixas1234567890's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Sock of [[User:Ra

• Blocking administrator: 5 albert square (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Considering that a CheckUser just confirmed that you have been abusing multiple accounts, I don't think that it's too much to ask that you sit out the autoblock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please note that continued creation of sock accounts, for any purpose, will likely result in your return to being indefinitely blocked. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

RALEW06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Ralew (talk)

RALEW06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC) RALEW!!!!!!!!!!!!! RALEW IS A FREAKY LITTLE AIDS-CARRYING DINOSAUR IN THE FILM RALEW:THE MOVIE. HE IS WUDDGGLED BY A FLUFFY FLYING PUPPY WITH SAIDS!HE'S SO FLUFFY

1.REDIRECT yOUR MOM

Archive 1