User talk:Myownusername

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

Welcome!

Hello, Myownusername, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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!

Hello {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}},

You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject,
a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing!

Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Wikipedia articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. ~~~~

You seem interested in deletion and rescue issues. -moritheil^Talk 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Please do not make rapid fire copy and paste WP:JNN to multiple AfDs in under a minute. Please consider each article individually. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_disruption.3F. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of your prior account please

Hey, I noticed that you have just started using this account, but it is clear that you are not a new user. Could you please tell us the name of your prior account, so that we know who you are? Many of your actions are raising eyebrows, and if we knew what your prior account was, and why you chose to abandon it and start this account, it would set a lot of people's minds at ease... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because you show a knowledge level of Wikipedia which does not make sense with mere lurking. You have active, practiced knowledge of editing, including the use of advanced parts of Wikipedia which means that you not only have been watching what has been going on, but that you are keenly aware at how to operate some esoteric aspects of Wikipedia. It is plainly obvious that you haven't just been lurking before, you've been doing before as well. All I think that is really needed to alleviate suspicion is for you to let us know under what guise you were doing that under. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report on Potter69

There's no need to report a user as "vandalism only" when they've been warned once for creating a non-notable entry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain what i did wrong???? Myownusername (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just go around mass deleting articles. You need to have an AfD discussion. Soxwon (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered every one of those, I just did them rapidly after considering them to save time. Myownusername (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all about you, you need to consult the community and actually get input from others. Soxwon (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well how is what i did amount to "trolling" Myownusername (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpupet investigation

I have filed a checkuser request against you concerning your recent participation in an RfA at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DougsTech. —Mythdon t/c 02:17, 5 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I really didn't know that my actions would have been taken so seriously. Please allow me a second chance

Decline reason:

No. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:46, 5 May 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.

Why not? did you actually look at my request? Myownusername (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. You seemed to agree with my opinion on the number of administrators, so they blocked you. Remember - they do whatever they want and get away with it. --DougsTech (talk) 02:57, 5 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Dear administrators, I feel that this block was excessive. I would like the request to be considered seriously. I really didn't know that my actions would have been taken so seriously. #I promise not to oppose any administrators in the future #I promise not to put more descriptive votes in AfDs in the future If there are any more criteria I must fulfill, I would be happy to do so.

Decline reason:

It's clear that you're not a new user. Socks aren't allowed here. X clamation point 03:40, 5 May 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.

Thats exactly what you should NOT do...they are trying to intimidate you into supporting more admins and not opposing the RfAs. If you really just want to be unblocked, I would suggest modifying that to read "will not VOTE in any more RfAs". --DougsTech (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Let's not cloud the issue. You appear to be an established user or an anon who recently registered an account. As both an anon and under this user name, you made bad faith deletion taggings and nominations, bad faith reports to WP:AN/I, and engaged overall in disruption. Your use of this account has been purely disruptive and this account has been blocked rightly. Dloh cierekim 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to related WP:AN/I discussion. 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)