User talk:Owaavaax

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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry, was testing. Please give new chance. No more test pages created, no more insults. Owaavaax (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. Further attacks or other disruption will result in an indefinite block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 22 July 2016 (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.

Oppose: -- There is no excuse for blanking warnings from his talk page or using obscenities or showing contempt for the entire project. Block should be longer than 1 day, in any event. Quis separabit? 20:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Rms125a's comment — You are VERY lucky to have not gotten an indefinite block... as I would if I were an admin. Take this time to go over the criteria for the project, and when the blocking period is over, do not repeat the same behavior again, as this will almost definitely lead to an indefinite or long-term block. 172.56.42.142 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Owaavaax (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gun show loophole

This topic is being discussed.

Please read and join in the discussion, rather than ignoring it and appearing ignorant.

Read up on WP:BRD and be a decent member of the community. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Owaavaax (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove? [1] Darknipples (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been executed for touching GSL by the usual owners DK aka Lightbreather and her usual cohorts. Did anyone really believe it was anyone else? LB knew she needed help pushing her gun hating agenda and created another account that was just as dogmatic but not so ridiculously offensive. Only a truly split personality could pull off such shenanigans. Calling them out for what they are. The absurdly obvious POV pushing leftist mafia is the biggest bunch of hypocrites. They harass, as above, use weasel tactics like pretending they are neutral and friendly, and like any good cultural marxist they have no problem lying out their ..... Do what LB did, create another account or three. There is no way they can stop that. Never edit from same IP, hotspot off a cellphone, neighbors WI-FI, turn of router, etc. Fight fire with fire. Wikipedia has long been the lurking place of social misfits, dimwits, and libtards who otherwise are dismissed in the real world. Off course many fit in all 3 categories while some are just plain nuts. 172.56.13.28 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice theory, but Owaavaax was blocked for this. clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition of a classical anti Libtardian theory. I admit it may be possibly this after further reading further edits. I agree not everyone at Wikipedia is a homo or a homer but we must conclude they occur here at a alarmingly high frequency.[2] 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Owaavaax. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Creektiming (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Ancient Belgian language

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, why was it better before? Don't you feel people need to know what they currently speak in Belgium? And how what they do speak is, how do I put it, not even related to the old Belgian tongue? Owaavaax (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your addition to The_Early_Years_1965—1972 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Warning for restoring material that had been removed for being a copyvio. Every editor is responsible for all material they add, even when restoring material that has been removed by another editor. Especially when, as in this case, it was obvious from the page history and the edit summaries there that it had been removed for being a copyright violation. Thomas.W ^talk 20:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Noble Espresso

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Noble Espresso 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 an organization or company, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Thomas.W ^talk 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User:Thomas.W. Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Propaganda bullhorn" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Propaganda bullhorn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1 § Propaganda bullhorn until a consensus is reached. — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]