User talk:Tenchwood Pie

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Tenchwood Pie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Netsnipe ► 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Let us be reasonable; we are building an encyclopedia. How can you justify adding to it a picture of your dog? Do you imagine the Encyclopedia Brittanica would include it? No difference.--Anthony.bradbury 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is everything wrong with it. However much you appreciate your dog, he does not merit an encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not be silly. Your dog, however clever and however lovable, does not merit an encyclopedia article. --Anthony.bradbury 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scruffy

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Anthony.bradbury 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Doggy is certainly edible; properly cooked, delicious at that

Yes, your dog is edible. So is your cat and your parrot. Actually, so's your sister, but that would be illegal.

Scruffy

I am not responsible for the above comment, which I do not approve of; as the article is now under {{AfD}}, let us just await concensus.--Anthony.bradbury 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am responsible. I like dogs. Of course, it all depends on the chef, ja?DocEss 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

READ THIS NOW

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as READ THIS NOW. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -FisherQueen 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Wildthing61476 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

The article merited speedy deletion. Please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review if you have any further complaint. Also, please remain civil regarding edits such as these: [1] and [2] or you will be blocked. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for making personal attacks, creating articles to make a point, in which you violated our policy about legal threats. If you really wish to have an article on Scruffy, please take Bastique's advice in 24 hours.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:57, 20 October 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

uuNBLOCK ME I DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG, EXCEPT FOR MAKING GOOD CONTRIBUTIONS

Decline reason:

You're obviously too young or immature to be editing on Wikipedia. Does Scruffy the Dog really belong in ANY encyclopedia? What would anyone else in the world apart from you want to know about your dog? Since you refuse to accept our policy on notability, I'm upholding your block. -- Netsnipe ► 19:08, 20 October 2006 (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 have to ask this question for the sake of backing up the point that this incident was concerning a hoax article: How can your dog win a dog show in 1991 if he was born in 2000? Tuxide 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a miss print bitch --Tenchwood Pie 20:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

86.139.30.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

violations of WP:NPA and WP:POINT

Blocking administrator: not provided.

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have been auto blocked for some reason?? --Tenchwood Pie 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. You've been blocked directly for 24 hours. -- Netsnipe ► 20:10, 20 October 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is so stupid, I didnt do anything!! I think someone hacked into my account for something??!!

Decline reason:

Special:Contributions/Tenchwood_Pie shows otherwise. If you can't vouch for the security of your own account and/or computer, I'll be inclined to permanently block you as a security precaution. Be very careful with what you say. -- Netsnipe ► 20:45, 20 October 2006 (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.

If you think calling people twat, bitch, etc. is a good contribution you are mistaken. Your article was deleted and can be reviewed for undeletion if you wish in ~24 hours when your block expires. Until then, I advise you to stop calling people names or your block may be extended.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didnt call anyone a bitch or twat, my account had been hacked, please unblock so I can change password --Tenchwood Pie 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can change your password while being blocked. Just go to my preferences in the upper left of your browser window. Like I said, in twenty four hours the block will expire. Then you can get back to productive editing.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me edit now, I didnt do anything, i think my account has been hacked or something. --Tenchwood Pie 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU KNOW WHAT? FUCK THIS FUCKING ENCLOPEDIA, ITS SO FUCKING GAY, THE ADMINS ARE GAY AND I HOPE SOME GUY HACKS THIS SHIT HOLE. HONESTLY, THIS WIKIPEDIA SITE IS THE WORST RUN SITE IN THE WORLD. I HOPE IT CRUMBLES INTO PIECES. THE ADMINS ARE SHIT, THEIR POLICIES ARE SHITTER AND THE WHOLE WIKIPEDIA THEORY IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED. FUCK YOU --Tenchwood Pie 20:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]