User talk:MillionaireMan

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Chris19910 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chris19910 for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Reversals

Please go a bit easy on your reversals. Most of them have indeed been removals of vandalisms. But some have not. You undid an edit to Apostles' Creed, whose edit summary clearly said that the reasons for the edit were given on Talk: you should surely not have reverted within the minute without giving even a glance at the reasons. I think it possible that the edit you reverted in Jesus myth hypothesis also was a good-faith edit that did not deserve to be eliminated without proper thought. In Soviet space program you reverted just one of a series of vandalisms by the same editor. ... Lima (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, MillionaireMan, 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! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Sorry, I was unable to fulfill your request for rollback. Please take a couple of months and get a few hundred edits under your belt before reapplying. Thanks for your contributions, and again, welcome! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/May 2008#MillionaireMan. RFRBot (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Scribble wiki

A tag has been placed on Scribble wiki 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 web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 web content.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blowdart | ^talk 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Scribble wiki

A tag has been placed on Scribble wiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Plrk (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't repost material deleted per policy and please don't create "spam" articles. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page...Wikipedia is not for the promotion or advertising of websites. Since your contribution consisted solely of links to your own website, it was deleted. Repeatedly. _GB^T/C 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scribble wiki

If you post a reliable source on my talk page and i believe it to be a truly relaible source, ill gladly undelete it for you. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reading WP:CIVIL as well. This article of yours was deleted under proper procedure and does not merit personal attacks on other users and administrators. Please don't be abusive and please read some of the links provided to you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scribble Wiki

The article in question had a strong promotional tone and was liberally sprinkled with first person pronouns in a manner that clearly shows a conflict of interest was present (If you have the authority to grant administrator privileges as claimed then you are not a neutral third-party). In addition, while you claim the article was referenced, there were nothing except two external links to the described site and the pages linked to list no information about the site. In short there was nothing in the article to suggest that this article was about anything other than a newly formed website looking to gain publicity. --Allen3 ^talk 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very close to being blocked

Are you, or are you not blocked sockpuppeteer User:Chris19910 and puppet User:Peterpipper? I believe you are. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Scribble Wiki says you started one called "humanbeings". Your post on Pedro's talk page says you started humanbeings scribble wiki. I cannot fathom any clearer evidence. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you actually asserting that, although you claim in your article (that I can still see even though it's deleted) that you created it, and although in your previous incarnation as User:Peterpipper, also claimed you created it, that one of you is lying? Isn't it far more likely that you are exactly the same person that needs to stop posting to Wikipedia? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only two are admins, and you're one of them, don't you already know who the other is? Your story is getting thinner, and so is your time here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's first edit was to install Twinkle! I smell dirty socks. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And within an hour, requesting rollback, very similar to many of the other socks of Chris19910. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also beginning to suspect he's not a millionaire. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO what your saying is that I am a sockpuppet of User:chris199100 are you? Well I most certainly am not. Feel free to do a checkuser then. MillionaireMan (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't care about your past.~~ Others might. I care that you've been disruptive. Are you going to stop? Do you have any intention of using Wikipedia for some purpose other than promoting your website? It's pretty clear that while this is a new account, you're not a new editor. Is there some reason you're using a new account? Friday (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(It appears that I care at least a little, about your past.) Friday (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you indefinitely for trolling. This namedropping nonsense is just like User:Madman2008. It seems pretty clear to me (and a few others, from the looks of it) that you're up to no good. Friday (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I actually did intend to use this account properly like my other one with Steward access which I gave up because I was bored. Refering to User:Friday for details.MillionaireMan (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The argument that you have the experience and background to know better but still performed the acts in question is not a valid reason to overturn the block. --Allen3 ^talk 19:47, 21 May 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).

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

Request reason:

User:Allen3 you would say that as you were involved in the discussion above and so you do not have a neutral point of view. I request another Admin that wasnt involved in the above discussion to look at the block please. And I would at least like the block reduced to something more reasonable.

Decline reason:

No way. You're contributions evidence that you are clearly a sockpuppet. Chris, bluntly, you're no longer welcome here under any account. Your disruption is childish. Please find another website to work on. Wikipedia does not want you here - sorry but that's the way it is. Pedro : Chat 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] It is quiet apparent that you have had multiple accounts and are pushing the same non-encyclopedic material. You are a seasoned user who should know better and thus expectations of your behaviour are much higher. Above you exhibit a patent disregard for advice given and persist in wasting the time of users who volunteer at wikipedia. The block should stand as should similar blocks for any new accounts you start to continue thsese games. — David D. (Talk) 20:21, 21 May 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.