User talk:JCI

August 2008

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Realist² 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will decline to block Snowy9111 for now as he seems to have stopped vandalizing. I'll keep an eye on his contribs, though. Useight (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for being a harrassment-only account. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by User:Toddst1 for harassment-only. This isn't a harassment-only account. I actually know those vandals who vandalised Mario-related pages - they're my classmates. They hate Mario and Nintendo for no reason and I get p!$$ed off when someone expresses hate for Nintendo. I warned them to stop. I promise I will stop harassing if unblocked. I actually did a good thing by thanking Useight and Master of Pies for reverting that vandalism. And I have a question on the Reference Desk that I need to ask desperately. So I request to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

We have administrators to deal with vandals in a civil, mature and responsible way. If you know these guys, it would have been better to talk to them personally, offline, about this. Wikipedia is not another venue for your disagreements. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Well, if I can't have an unblock, can I have a shortened block?

Decline reason:

It appears that this type of harassment was the only purpose of your account. Acordingly, the indef block is justified. — Selket ^Talk 07:17, 26 August 2008 (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.

{{unblock|I said above that I would promise to stop harassing if unblocked, so please give me a chance to get unblocked.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Okay, I take that as a promise and your list of actions isn't that long. Hopefully you can leave your disagreements now at the door and contribute. But if you resume stalking or harassing others you will be blocked without further warning.

Request handled by: Tikiwont (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 124.181.254.143 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Tikiwont (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

No thanx i would prefer to allow this boy u speak of to have his own opinnions thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titch007 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Hi im a kid with multiple opinions who believes any person is allowed to convey those opinions no matter how strong or rude thankyou for your time. Sure no worries zorg zero davidson glorbus face man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titch007 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Game On (exhibition)

I have nominated Game On (exhibition), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game On (exhibition). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that you now have actually started contributing!--Tikiwont (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: having a date as your name can be confusing to others. 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 requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators 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.

Thank you. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account, JCI, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
In the alternative, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User name

The existing name is confusing, particularly in your signature on talk pages. Please request a new name that conforms to WP:U. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing username change to JCI (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

Request handled by: Spellcast (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking around

I'm glad you were willing to change your name and stick around! Best of luck in your future Wikipedia work! You might want to delete or archive the old warnings; they're obviously no long relevant, especially the name one. — Alan De Smet | Talk 07:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marysville, Victoria

Although I had semiprotected Marysville, Victoria for you, Melburnian (talk · contribs) unprotected it. (See the discussion on my talk page. Melburnian and Debate (talk · contribs) feel they have the vandalism under control. If you have any concerns, you might talk to them about it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Golf Courses of the World in 365 Days

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golf Courses of the World in 365 Days, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non notable book. Title is incorrect, article just a list of golf courses.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached._wjemather ^bigissue 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]