User talk:Kdpsssps

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 5 (gum) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. ~Richmond96 t • c 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Aashay Srivastava

A tag has been placed on Aashay Srivastava requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. Mm40 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aashay Srivastava

Dear Kdpsssps

In challenging the speedy delete nomination of Aashay Srivastava, you should provide a reasoning why the article shouldn't be deleted on the article's talk page. I suggest you hurry, because the article could be deleted very soon otherwise. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a response on the talk page. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Aashay Srivastava, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. This page was speedy deleted again, because it did not assert the notability of the subject. Please review the links provided in the speedy delete advisory of two weeks ago. Thank you. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Death of Elvis Presley

A tag has been placed on Death of Elvis Presley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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. hydrox (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the way the article is written, with numbered references in the text ranging from 13 to 300, and that do not correspond to anything given as references, make it evident that it was copied from some book. I have accordingly deleted it as undoubtedly a copyright violation. (the notice above gave the wrong reason, but putting such material in Wikipedia is unacceptable) Do not introduce articles like this. Please see our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I should have looked. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG

This page is not an article, it is a userpage. It is generally frowned upon to edit others' userpages. Please stop. ÷seresin 22:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. StarM 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kdpsssps. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StarM 01:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Elvis Presley

This article appears to be cut and pasted from Elvis Presley#Final year and death without formatting or references. Are you trying to break this section out into it's own article?--RadioFan (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kdpsssps! I am Abce2 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not make personal attacks against people or groups of people as you did on this talk page. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Sarah 16:30, 2 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? What disruptive edit have I done to be blocked from Wikipedia? I have made no recent edit to Wikipedia that goes against Wikipedia policy.

Decline reason:

I'm having trouble locating your constructive, useful edits in your contribution history; you don't appear to have made any. You did insult several people and recreate a deleted article, and of course there was this, but I can't find any evidence that unblocking you would make the encyclopedia better. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (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.

See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Troll.3F. It would help if you could respond to issues raised there. Sarah 17:55, 2 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

As for my useful edits, I admit there aren't many but there is Shiv Kumar Saroj and as for insults I don't recall making any. I also warned an admin of an event happening in Uncyclopedia and that helped him. The vandalism of DG] is but one disruptive edit, for which I already received a warning. I was telling StarM about that when he warned me of the same edit. I did not know that recreating a deleting article goes against Wikipedia's policy, so yes, I'm sorry about that. I am currently collecting information to make an important enlargement to the article: Gran Canaria and the Canary Islands. As for the bit about Uncyclopedia, I have seen what has been said on the admin page and must say that that was not me. There is a user there by the name of Kdpsssps, but that is not me. There is also a StarM on Uncyclopedia and I created an account there to investigate as it was in my interest too. StarM should be able to confirm that I went to his page and warned him and asked him to HELP me by commenting on my Uncyclopedia talk page. After this issue was solved, I left Uncyclopedia. The two blocked users were: Kdpsssps and StarM. And how many times do I have to repeat it? I got the notice of vandalism from StarM for no reason! I did blank DGG's article and received a vandal warning from Antandrus. I received two warnings for the same edit! The proof is on my talk page. As for the "odd" coincidence, I must admit that if that happened (I don't know whether it did or not), it'd be odd, but when my first article was deleted, the admin who did it told me that "We want to stress that we aren't being bullish, we simply feel that Srivastava is not notable enough to be on an encyclopedia". Remembering this, I used it there. Once more, I believe that the admin (on my talk page) should be able to confirm this.

Decline reason:

Looking over your edits, I've decided there are too many problems and not enough repentance to unblock you. If you wish to appeal further, please email arbcom-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do repent vandalising DGG's user page, and apologise again for it. I was stressed and... But it was wrong and I admit it and I apologise. Apart from that I have not done anything else wrong. I admit I recreated a deleted article but I did not know that that was against Wikipedia's policy. Again, StarM's vandal warning was UNJUSTIFIED. Antandrus already warned me about DGG and I apologised. Abce2 also warned me of the same edit so I explained the situation to him and he understood, but StarM did not. I have made a constructive edit to Shiv Kumar Saroj. I once again apologise for what I did to DGG. Antandrus should be able to confirm this. I was also accused of "dissing" StarM on Uncyclopedia. This is not true. I found this and warned StarM of it. There was also a user of my name: Kdpsssps, so I created Kdpssps to investigate. I kindly request to be unblocked and be given another oppurtunity. I was not, in fact, on my last warning, as explained above.

Decline reason:

No indication that future edits will be less disruptive than previous. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

What is so difficult to understand here? I'm sorry for what I did, I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, so could you please unblock me as I repent my actions. It's been over a year now! I apologise to DGG for vandalising his page, but as I have said on countless other occasions, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING I DID, yet I ended up getting 3 warnings and a block for the same reason. Do you admins not like unblocking people, or do you just enjoy your priveleges as admins? I'm sorry if I sound cocky, but it's the truth. I have good reason to hate the admins of Wikipedia. Before anyone even mentions Uncyclopedia, THAT WASN'T ME! And even if it was, that's Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with this site. So, please, could I be unblocked again? I swear this is the last time I'm asking; if I'm declined again, I'll just leave. Happy?

Decline reason:

You lost me at "I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place." And it just gets worse from there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now that I look at it again, yeah, it does kinda get quite bad. Sorry. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I was given 3 warnings and a block for the same reason (vandalising DGG's page). I apologise for it, and would apologise to DGG personally if I could. I think that Wikipedia admins abuse their power, though that's irrelevant. I promise not to vandalise or cause disruptions again, and will do my best to become a constructive member of Wikipedia. I really do repent my actions.

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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 29 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for disruptive editing. The main (and only) reason was vandalising DGG's user page. I apologise to him for that. I repent my actions and will do my best to be a constructive member of Wikipedia. I promise not to cause any more disruption in Wikipedia. I therefore request to be unblocked. I promise not to let Wikipedia down again.

Decline reason:

You were told many unblock requests ago that the ONLY method of being unblocked is to email arbcom-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org ... as such, additional unblock reqeusts in this manner are an abuse of the unblock process, and should lead to the locking of your talkpage. Please pay attention to the advice and directions that are provided to you - this will result in less stress, and often quicker action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (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.