User talk:Patches1998

Welcome to your talk page Patches1998!

If this isn't Patches1998, you may place ambox warnings and comments if you wish but if you see any other warnings that are the same as the one you are about to post, DO NOT BOTHER TO PUT A WARNING! If you put a warning on this talk page, I will respond as quickly as I can on your talk page.


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #242

Speedy deletion of A to Z mysteries

A tag has been placed on A to Z mysteries requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their 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. Terrillja (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of A to Z mysteries

A tag has been placed on A to Z mysteries requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their 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. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of A to Z mysteries

A tag has been placed on A to Z mysteries 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 a person or group of people, 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 biographies.

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. Clubmarx (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A to Z mysteries

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A to Z mysteries, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Terrillja (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Super Granny 3

I have nominated Super Granny 3, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Granny 3. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Millbrooky (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Millbrooky (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Patches1998, it looks like you're trying hard to learn your way around Wikipedia, but may be having troubles. Here are some links you may want to review for how to create articles so they are not deleted:

Hello, Patches1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Super Granny 3 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Belinrahs (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Super Granny 3

A tag has been placed on Super Granny 3, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your user page...

Hi Patches! You don't need to be an admin to edit your user page... just click here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I've deleted your userpage as it contained excess amounts of personal information. Please remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world, pages on Wikipedia, including userpages often show up high in Google search results where anyone can see them. For this reason, you should not put personal information like hometown, birthday, and email address on your userpage. Mr.Z-man 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted your userpage again for the same reason. You are welcome to post information about yourself, however please do not personal identifying information such as your email address, age, hometown, and so on. This information can be used to find you in "real life" which can lead to problems. We are trying to help protect you from that. If we have to delete your userpage again, we will protect it so that it cannot be recreated, and you may additionally be blocked. Please let me know here if you have questions - you may want to talk to your parents about internet safety as well. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hi there. I saw that you are requesting adminship. All users in good standing can ask to be admins, but the community usually requires a lot of experience before agreeing that someone should be granted admin status. You've only been here for six weeks and have less than 50 edits; I can guarantee that your request will be closed with this reason very, very quickly. I would suggest that it would make sense to withdraw your request for now. Stick around, edit a lot, gain some more experience and try again in six months--you'll have a much better chance then. Don't get me wrong, everyone on Wikipedia admires someone who is passionate about wanting to help the project. Asking to become an admin so quickly shows passion, but you just don't have the experience needed yet.

You might also want to take a look at our adoption program, which pairs new users with experienced editors to help you learn about how Wikipedia works and how to maximise the use of your strengths to make the project better. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For your threat of disruption, you have been blocked indefinitely. You may contest this block by posting {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Patches1998!

Looks like you've been blocked for now. When you log back in, follow the unblock instructions above. I'd like to be around to help you figure out how this place works and to see that you don't get in trouble again :) Hope to see you soon! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:34, 3 November 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).

Patches1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry. I haven't been around a while. I was just kidding about the 10 year old thing. But I will try not to ever threaten people on Wikipedia with disruption. I didn't really know that was disruptive with what I did since I am a newbie. Patches1998 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm glad to hear that you won't threaten disruption again, but I am still concerned that you might cause disruption, possibly intentionally, which is really the main issue. Specifically, I am concerned that you might post an inappropriate user page again (I don't believe you were "just kidding", by the way), and I'm concerned that you might repost other deleted material again. Mango juice^talk 16:13, 15 March 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.

Another Unblock Request

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).

Patches1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have almost quit Wikipedia now. I am really not 10 years old and if you want to know where I got that idea for the 10 year-old stuff, look here. Please, I am really tired of not being able to edit Wikipedia. Please unblock me! Patches1998 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were quite able to edit with your other account before you drew attention to yourself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:16, 23 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.

Can you maybe explain why you were being disruptive and causing problems, even when asked to stop? If you can provide an understandable reason, an administrator would probably be more likely to unblock you. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock... again

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).

Patches1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Look, here is the thing. I got that 10 years thing from Backslash Fowardslash, an admin who says he is 4. I really an not 10 years old. And also, that secret weapon thing was a mistake on my side. It was really a copy of the article in a word document. I don't even care about that game anymore. That is all I have to say. And, I am sorry for the disruption. I wasn't thinking too good when that happened. I won't ever do it again. Patches1998 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
• do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
• do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
• do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
• do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.

Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2010 (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.

You're already editing as User:Rascal the Peaceful; the real question to the reviewing admin should be, "shall we block Rascal for block evasion". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, there should be a rule on Wikipedia saying "If a vandal creates an account and with it assumes good faith, it should not be treated as a block evasion, but as something that is saying 'I am sorry for what I did and I will assume good faith'. If the person with the two accounts wishes, he can ask for the other to be unblocked. If after this he goes back and starts vandalizing again, THEN it is time to take action and THEN is the time to start shutting down the accounts because you know you can't trust him". This applies to me, because here is the hallmark: I ASSUMED GOOD FAITH!!! I DIDN'T REPOST DELETED CONTENT WHATSOEVER AND I DIDN'T DISRUPT WIKIPEDIA BY TALKING ABOUT SOME FALSE WEAPON OF MINE, OF WHICH I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYMORE! PLEASE, LET OFF THE PRESSURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also, this does apply to another guy who I remember. He was a sock, and he went all the way to admin status, and then someone checkusered him, and then everyone started going ape@#$% about that and blocking him. He still assumed good faith! And last of all, Beeblebrox, that isn't anywhere in the things to help appeal a block, because I read that personally, and not one thing said "Make the blocked user get an article, put it on their talk, and make them turn the copy into something useful", and the caps are because I'm trying to get a point across. Thank you for reading. Patches1998 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked your other usernames for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, you remind me of a totalarian communist, quick, unresonable, and carries out orders just or not. Patches1998 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2010 (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).

Patches1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have though over what happened, and why I was blocked, and I think I'm ready for one last try. I was just a little kid when I was first blocked, and I was when I tried to request all of those times. I didn't know what repercussions would happen if I said something like what I said. I wasn't very mature then. But now, I realize what I implied when I said that I had a secret weapon. In truth, I don't know any programming aside from some batch programming, and even that I keep to myself. But my point is, I know that what I did was immature and wrong. When I created those accounts, I created them because I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, to make a difference here. That's all I wanted to do. And I still want to do that same exact thing. I don't know what else to say, honestly. I also don't know if you'll deny my unblock request just because of what the admin said last time, but I really hope that you don't just because of that. I just want to help Wikipedia, that's all. I hope you will consider my request, and I hope that I will be able to edit Wikipedia again soon without wondering if I'm going to be blocked again because I'm trying to edit with a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

Since you're continuing to sock, you clearly don't understand why you are blocked, you will not be unblocked until you stop it Jac16888 ^Talk 23:46, 8 April 2012 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: This person was editing as recently as today, as Saígúrun (talk · contribs). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, forgot to mention that. :) Patches1998 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked for apparently using abusive scripts (which I wasn't), and repeated socking, right? Patches1998 (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]