User talk:Nobody533

Speedy deletion of Joker (internet)

A tag has been placed on Joker (internet) 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 (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. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Grsz11 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 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).

Nobody533 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin Conspiracy

Decline reason:

Yes, we had a meeting where we decided to conspire against you. Please. — Yamla (talk) 16:31, 5 March 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.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Grsz11, you will be blocked from editing. Grsz11 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of forever from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 4 March 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).

Nobody533 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That was an isolated case caused by my friend who was on the computer. Also, I have been accused of having a vandalism only account, however, I have Contributed to several articles anonymously and my account.

Decline reason:

Per comments below on this request. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 5 March 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.

I've contacted the blocking admin for comment. Please stand by. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the blocking admin has logged off. I would decline this - I don't believe someone else who edited the PC happened to know the {deletebecause} template. Black Kite 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Since I blocked, I will not decline the unblock myeslef, however, I will add the following to perhaps help another admin make a decision. First, this account's positive contributions date from nearly a year ago. This was hardly an "active" account, with several months between isolated events. Second, if this account has been compromised, unblocking it likely represents a security risk that we cannot take. Third, the harassment of Grsz11 was so eggregious and beyond the pale, I find it hard to assume good faith from anyone using this account. Any other admin may review this unblock request and act as they choose. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not inclined to unblock for the same reasons as Jayron32 and Black Kite. {{deletebecause}} is seldom used template that a new user would be unlikely to know. This may have prompted the harassment [1].-- Ѕandahl 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Conspiracy

It seems like the admins are abusing their powers. Since my account has been blocked from editing anything, I cannot even edit my user page. Also, since my account is locked, i cannot talk on the talk pages.

Yes, this is what happens when you are blocked. We don't want to allow any further harassment from this account. --Yamla (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]