User talk:MadMans1019

Welcome!

Hello, MadMans1019, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Poopologe, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Poopologe

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Poopologe, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism and sock puppetry. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock

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).

MadMans1019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I'll edit constructively now. I promise not to use GH:WT or any other of my sockpuppets. If needed you can wait 6 months to do this. Also on Supdiop: range block is extreme. MadMans1019 (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. You will need to wait for at least 6 months without sockpuppetry if you are serious about wanting to become a contributor. Max Semenik (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2015 (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.

I saw Wikipedia's vandalism is pointless page, it changed me.

And your connection with Supdiop is what, precisely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supdiop helped Bbb23 block me but he got permablocked for sockpuppeteering. MadMans1019 (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hey, MadMans here. I have been editing anonymously via IP to try to help the wiki since around June 2016. As of this moment, to look forward to standard offer, I will stop editing until April via IP. I may or may not have chose this because these are the days that go by the quickest. 96.237.24.131 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that despite that message, you have still continued to persistently evade your block, using a number of IP addresses in the range 96.237.20.0 - 96.237.27.255, to mention only the ones I know of. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

I have decided I am finally sure in contributing positively to this site. I would put that unblock template here but I don't remember what it is /:

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).

MadMans1019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK, finally found the template. Read the text above

Decline reason:

I am a checkuser, and am thus able to review this appeal. However, for the record I haven't even opened the CU dashboard with regards to this account, since this request is so woefully insufficient. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 12 June 2017 (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.

Leaving this to an admin with checkuser access, as this is a checkuser block. Note, though, that I was inclined to reject the unblock request as nowhere near sufficient, given the history of abuse from this editor. --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see why you would, to be honest. MadMans1019 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2017 (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).

MadMans1019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will improve many articles and try to remove vandalism. My active articles have yet to be decided. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for long-term WP:sockpuppetry. Please address that issue in the next unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2017 (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.