User talk:Surfsbruce

Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies Yipikaye

February 2013

Hello, I'm Skamecrazy123. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User talk:24.135.84.89 with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surfsbruce, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Surfsbruce! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies

The article Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable list. Seems to be too vague; subjective criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise

Hi! I had already set you up with an edit request at Talk:Tom Cruise#Edit request on behalf of new editor, so I removed yours, which was a duplicate asking for the same thing. If your proposed edit gains consensus, it will be added. CtP (t • c) 04:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yipikaye

The article Yipikaye has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable Neologism that does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 23 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am on a shared proxy and I got blocked--Surfsbruce (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes. Editing via proxy is not allowed here except in the most unusual geographical circumstances. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:11, 23 February 2013 (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.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Anthony is correct, however you're not editing from a proxy, and have been

Confirmed as a sock by both myself and Alison. —DoRD (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't gonna help Wikipedia, even to the least extent--Surfsbruce (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the imminent danger that I posed to the project??????--Surfsbruce (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not vandalising Wikipedia--Surfsbruce (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for vandalism. You are blocked for the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Since you haven't addressed the reason for your block, there's nothing in this unblock request for me to review. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 23 February 2013 (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.

Honestly, Surfsbruce (if that's what you wish to be called at the moment), making more of these unblock requests that refuse to address the reason you were blocked in the first place (sockpuppetry) is simply going to get your talk page access revoked. CtP (t • c) 18:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have used so many different accounts, it might be that you'll simply have to accept that your time as a Wikipedia editor is over, and go develop a different hobby. You could try the standard offer, but you'll need to make a very strong case that you've developed skills you didn't have in the past, and you'll need to spend an extended period of time demonstrating that you will respect the terms of your block and refrain from editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:45, 23 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I will never ever again engage in sock puppetry if I get a second chance to play by the rules. I am not inclined to engage in sockpuppetry, but I am not getting any other option. Please forgive and forget about the past. Please, Please, Please--Surfsbruce (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the last twenty declines. I don't see that anything has changed. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2013 (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.

An extended period of time respecting your block is more like six months to a year, not half an hour. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sooner the better. C:--Surfsbruce (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There's a good chance that you wouldn't have found anyone to unblock you even then, considering your long list of alternate accounts, so it was a long shot. If you've decided to continue the current pattern - you make a sockpuppet, we block it, you make another, eventually you die of old age and stop without a single one of your edits remaining in the encyclopedia after you - that's a valid alternative, and it doesn't cause us all that much extra work. But it's kind of a sad way to spend your one and only precious life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mistakes go, it was a really good one. Haaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaa!!!!!! C:--Surfsbruce (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru, I will let you be my Guru if you unblock me. C:--Surfsbruce (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]