User talk:Rhinostampede

Welcome!

Hello, Rhinostampede, 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!

RE: Help

No problem, fixed it for you. Any more help you need, just let me a know. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hello. I recently reverted your request for adminship at WP:RFA. I do so as the request was malformed, not only does the RfA page for transclusion not exist, you added the request to the bottom of the page. For more information on how to nominate yourself properly, please consult Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. I would advise you, however, that it is probably best to wait a little longer before putting yourself up for adminship. While the initiative to help the community is completely appriciated, you should know that community consensus is that a canidate for adminship have at least 2,000 edits, with some having far higher counts. At any rate, happy editing and best of luck if you do decide to go forward with requesting adminship. Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 05:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus also appears to like an experience of at least three months - six is better - with significant contribution in admin-related areas. Good luck. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals with a final warning

Just adding "You have been blocked" does not block a user. If a user vandalizes after their final warning, report them here. Thanks, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Sebastian98, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:211.28.58.108

This IP was blocked back on March 13th, which is also the day of their last edit. It's been taken care of. In the future, you can use WP:AIV for reporting things like this, after using an appropriate warning message. Grand master ka 13:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gordon24fan for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cheers, CP 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the meaning of this edit, saying an ip was blocked when it had not been? Did you put the notice on the wrong user's page? Note that placing inappropriate false notices can be considered vandalism. If you are unsure of policies, please ask. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misspelt unblock that was part of the problem. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers.(Rhinostampede (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Care to explain?(76.178.68.210 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC))rhoifhiofhoghoighofihoihfoi u son[reply]

WP:AIV report

In the future, when using AIV try to make sure you're not placing your report inside other comments. Also, the template you're looking for is {{vandal}}--VectorPotential^Talk 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Block notice #2

In reference to the discussion that you decided to delete from your talk page that discussed your two fake block notices that you posted on other talk pages... I realize you didn't misspell "unblock" twice. You misused the block notice template with no valid explanation. Do it again, and you'll be blocked. Consider this your final warning (since you deleted my previous final warning). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to warn the user, but you cannot block a user nor can you post a fake block notice on their talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings to IPs

Remember that when warning an anonymous user/IP address, it's entirely possible that the human user at the address changes every day, if not multiple times per day, if it's a dynamically assigned IP address. That's why I don't warn if I find a stale edit that snuck by for days or longer from an IP: I figure the user is long since gone. Now, if an IP targets the same address every day, that's another matter entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwards

Has been removed because edit found out to be not vandalism.(Rhinostampede (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps it was a good faith edit - I don't know - but since the citation you gave twice is a dead link that leads nowhere, as my reverting edit summary advised, it appears to not be so. Furthermore, there is no evidence anywhere that says that Edwards said he is not going to endorse anyone. There are some vague speculations by staff, who themselves say they don't know what he is going to do, and some predictions on websites that have no knowledge of anything. So please do not add this to the article until such a time that there are reliable sources backing up your claim. Edwards did not announce to Fox News that he's not endorsing anyone. Period. Tvoz |talk 17:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Gordon24fan (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Further comments: Alison ^❤ 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rhinostampede. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that:

You do not yet have enough experience (usually over 250 edit) in the main namespace.

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Ale_Jrb ^talk 15:38, 29 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).

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

Request reason:

I know i have made stupid mistakes in the past and that has motivated me to make Wikipedia a reliable source once again.

Decline reason:

Unblock request is made on abusive sockpuppet account instead of primary account, and does not address the reason for the block. — Yamla (talk) 00:03, 7 April 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.

RE: Stop Editing Yuma, AZ

I live here as well. No matter what rumors you may have heard, it's original research, and is not cited appropriately. Whether or not they lived here can be determined with a valid source. By the way, I only made one edit, and I posted on the discussion page discussing said edit. So your rude, effortless comment isn't appreciated. Let's keep it mature, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.68.196 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]