User talk:TheKhakinator

Hello TheKhakinator, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome!

Michael

Non-users?

What do you mean? Michael 07:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, sorry. You are required to have an account in order to create articles. You may, however, edit without one. You also only need one header for a discussion. You just need to click on the edit above the section you wish to edit and post your comment at the bottom as opposed to making an entirely new section for each comment. Michael 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of our concerns on Wikipedia is that anonymous users may rampantly create articles with no other intent than vandalism. If someone vandalizes an article, it's less problematic, as we can revert, but having to go over each article may pose more difficult. You're also required by Wikipedia to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes. A tilde is ~. Michael 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks...Just remember about the headers. Michael 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anymore questions? Michael 07:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think i got the hang of it now. Thanks for the help TheKhakinator 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Lewe(a-sp?)deaux... yes. Enjoy my overenthusiastic Hi! while you can.

OWMC! TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sp) indicates a spelling error. The a was indicating that it might be a. Meh. You shouldn't edit OWMC talk (unless he edits it before before 3 or 4 days without edits) so that it'll flow off his watchlist :) TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

To nominate a page for deletion, go here [1], and follow the steps, placing the appropriate markings and templates on the pages as needed. Michael 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Proofage.

Yes. Proofage. Now shush.

JamaicaK

Fuckin' rasta-pwnage! — mæstro ^t/c, 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, 31770 (number), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Ryan(^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article marked for speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on Connector Pens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

I posted your personal attacks against me on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and removed it from the Talk page. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:World Youth Day. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [2] [3] seicer | talk | contribs 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't edit war over the talk page comments. They were personal attacks and were removed. Have a legit concern? Surely, you can be much more civil than that. seicer | talk | contribs 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of East Coast Targa

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is East Coast Targa. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Coast Targa. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tas Pappas

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

not even close to being actually notable

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. StewartNetAddict (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm Dspradau. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Mazda— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dspradau → talk 01:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dice Bob for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dice Bob 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/Dice Bob 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 notice from the top of the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pellenc

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 Pellenc 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was really, really hesitant to block you, but I'm erring on the side of caution here. So far you've admitted to creating a hoax article here and participating in a group whose hobby included vandalizing Wikipedia and making some pretty nasty posts towards other editors. You knew of the existence of one and likely only tried to get it taken down because of some in-group strife or fear of repercussions. I almost didn't block you, but I notice that you practically blanked the Mazda article in 2015 in order to post an article about a seemingly non-notable company. This, paired with your pretty cavalier attitude towards creating a hoax article at the AfD (ie, telling us that we should keep it in memory of you and your friends' hijinx), makes me genuinely concerned about whether or not you can actually make productive edits on Wikipedia in the future. You've made some, but not really enough to overcome that concern.

Basically, what concerns me is that you don't seem to have any true concerns over the past vandalism, showing that you either don't really realize why vandalizing and making hoax articles is considered to be a bad thing on here or you just don't care. Either one is something that runs a pretty serious risk on here. I'm not against unblocking you, but you will really need to show that you understand and will respect Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like [4] could have been an honest mistake, given that they later created an actual stub at Pellenc. Hopefully TheKhakinator has moved on from their youthful indiscretions and is now interested in being a less colorful contributor. Several esteemed editors on Wikipedia started out as vandals, but are now fully reformed. Regardless, I appreciate the story explaining the creation of the article. I read it as more wistful than cavalier. I doubt TheKhakinator seriously expects us to consider keeping the article. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, he has a lot of vandalism under his belt and if he wants to be taken seriously (ie, not someone who is going to vandalize) then he needs to approach the subject with a little more seriousness. He might not have meant to be taken seriously, but we can't read intent behind someone's writing and as such, we have to take things at face value and at face value we have someone who confessed to taking part in vandalizing Wikipedia with a group of friends in the past, didn't confess to it until years later, and when the page was up for AfD, wrote a long rambling post where he closed with asking us to keep it as a memorial to his friends and that "does it not exist in the memories of those who were there for its imagination". Part of what concerned me was his lack of remorse or concern over what he did. While I'm aware that this is Wikipedia and not NATO, creating a hoax article is one of the worst things you can do on here, apart from making spam pages, vandalizing entries, and harassing other editors - and he's done two of those latter things in the past. What I want is to make sure that he can actually act like an adult and that he's going to respect the guidelines on here. He might have matured since then but I need to make sure that he has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to err on the side of caution. He might make another hoax article in another decade at this rate.

Seriously doesn't the fact that he even SAW the deletion show he now uses Wikipedia in a responsible way? This situation is the most Wikipedia moment I've ever witnessed. 2001:4898:80E8:5:0:0:0:3B2 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to login, my bad. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17509 was submitted on Feb 10, 2017 22:48:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn, because on the one hand this is completely hilarious, but on the other it's a clear violation of blocking policy, which states blocks should not be used "as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern". 103.27.228.12 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you say you're "erring on the side of caution", but I feel your actions betray you.

You see, you didn't just read my post and ban me for vandalism, perhaps not realising it was from almost a decade ago.

You read my post. But you didn't just ban me. You also blocked me from my own talk page so I couldn't actually discuss the matter. Then you hunted down other legitimate articles I've created, and deleted them. Five minutes on Google would have shown you Pellenc is a very notable company in its field with a global footprint. Someone who was here to build an encyclopaedia would have seen an opportunity to improve an article for the good of the community. You saw my name on it and declared it must be removed.

These are not the actions of someone "looking to build an encyclopaedia".

Banning me? Perhaps justified. The actions you took to silence discussion and wipe out my legitimate contributions were not.

I will stand up and admit some of my actions many years ago were frivolous and unproductive. However, I stand by my positive contributions and feel they have generally added to the value of Wikipedia as a cultural resources. People have tried to delete my articles before, only for them to become highly informative, quality resources. You are perhaps the only one to do so in a manner that, at least on the surface, appears spiteful.

Perhaps think about the type of person you want to be, next time you jump in on an article another administrator is investigating and start swinging your ban hammer. It can reflect very poorly on you.

I truly apologize to anyone I offended with my antics on this website in my youth. All I ask is that my legitimate contributions are not made to suffer in their name. TheKhakinator (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

It's been eight years. I tried to bring a little light into the world by telling the backstory behind the youthful folly and apologised for my indiscretions. I'd like to get back to contributing now. TheKhakinator (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Decliing this as procedural as a 2nd request was opened below with a great deal of discussion in between. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2017 (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 unblocked, what specific articles do you envision editing - and what changes do you intend to make? SQL ^{Query me!} 04:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically? Difficult to say but I'd primarily be concerned with the maintenance and improvement of pet articles such as Tas Pappas and Connector pen. Pellenc has been speedily deleted so despite their notability I probably wouldn't bother resurrecting it for fear of further retributive attacks. Other than that, my edit history has consisted of minor edits for spelling & grammatical errors. TheKhakinator (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in here - I was away for the last few days so I couldn't respond.

I noticed the Pellenc page because you created it, but the article failed WP:NCORP pretty soundly. Its only source was one primary source and a search only brought up brief, WP:TRIVIAL mentions and content that looked like it was a reprint or rephrasing of a press release. A company is not automatically notable because WP:ITEXISTS or because it's long lived and in order to establish notability per NCORP you'd have to show where the company has received coverage from multiple different outlets. Basically, you had an article where the sourcing wasn't enough to justify inclusion and a search did not produce enough of anything to alter this perception.

When it comes to the block, the block did not stop you from posting on your talk page. Initially I was just going to warn you, but what concerned me was that although you confessed to vandalizing Wikipedia years ago, you showed no true remorse at what you did. Hoax articles are seen as vandalism on Wikipedia and by asking us to keep the page you were in effect asking us to allow you to continue to spread misinformation (passively vandalizing Wikipedia) because of its nostalgic value to you. On top of this you blanked the Mazda article to paste content for Pellnec, which you never reverted. Given that you had an admitted past of vandalizing Wikipedia and you didn't seem to show any remorse or that you sincerely felt that what you did was wrong, this made you look very, very bad.

As an admin I have to be careful of other editors and I have to make a judgement call about whether or not someone would help or harm Wikipedia. The impression that you gave off was of someone who, at best, just didn't care about their editing on Wikipedia. I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't life or death, but editors are required to take their editing seriously and follow guidelines. Your cavalier attitude paired with some of your more current edits made me seriously question whether or not you would actually take Wikipedia seriously. In other words, you came across as someone who would vandalize Wikipedia again if the mood struck them and wouldn't take any of the guidelines seriously unless you were actually faced with the consequences of your actions.

If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia then you need to act in a more serious fashion. When you're caught doing something wrong you need to apologize for your actions and make sure that we understand that you will not do this again, not ask if we can let everything remain because it gives you the warm fuzzies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd been a very frequent contributor then that would have helped you out a lot, but you haven't really edited since 2009, back when you were vandalizing Wikipedia. Not including user talk page posts, you've made a total of six edits to five articles. Most of those were minor edits with the exception of the article creation and the edit to the Mazda article, so there's no truly good editing behavior to defend you. All of the pre-2009 behavior is tainted by the fact that you were admittedly trying to vandalize Wikipedia so even seemingly good edits are placed in question - and I'm saying 2009 because you created the hoax page on 17 June 2009. If you'd been active making a lot of good edits then that would have helped you, but you weren't and your only recent actions gave off the impression that you don't take Wikipedia seriously and you edit as it pleases you, regardless of whether or not it would benefit or harm Wikipedia. It's hard to really assume that you're going to edit seriously if your actions haven't backed up your words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm a friend, not a neutral party. But please allow me to provide some choice quotes from the Wikipedia blocking policy page:

- "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"

- "In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate."

- "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early."

- "Blocks should not be used: [...] where there is no current conduct issue of concern."

- "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block"

- "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior."

This block is absurd and completely counter to policy. It reflects poorly on you as an administrator and on the project as a whole. 223.72.70.131 (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I've written above. The user has a history of vandalizing articles. They have made very few edits since they were most active vandalizing articles and what they have posted is an edit that blanked a substantial article, a poorly sourced stub, and a long ramble about how we should keep an act of vandalism (a hoax article is an act of vandalism) because it makes them feel good about a point in their time when they were joking around with their friends and vandalizing Wikipedia. In other words, they endorsed keeping an act of vandalism because it gave them the warm fuzzies and they still found it funny. Someone who is interested in editing Wikipedia seriously would not endorse keeping an act of vandalism on Wikipedia. We honestly can't trust any of the "good" edits they made during the vandalism phase because quite frankly, they were looking to cause disruption on Wikipedia and get away with it. That they allowed a blatant hoax to remain on Wikipedia for years rather than get it deleted themselves shows a serious lack of judgement on their part, as a good editor would step forward (or at least discretely tell someone else) and say that the page needs to be removed. But no, this editor didn't do anything until they were caught in the act which gives me enough reasonable doubt to believe that they'd likely do something like this again if they got the chance to do it. Now ignoring that the veracity of a large bulk of their edits can now be easily doubted, they didn't really make a huge-huge amount of great edits. For example, one of the articles that they talked about creating was made as a stub with little to no information and sourcing to the point where it would actually have stood a decent-ish chance of getting deleted in 2007 in its then state. It was many, many other editors that created the bulk of the article and given their work, I have no doubt that it would've been created even if TheKhakinator had never signed up to Wikipedia. I have to assume that any positive edits that weren't vandalism were likely made as a smokescreen to hide their vandalism and their post-2009 work doesn't show where a lot would be lost if they were never allowed to edit Wikipedia - especially as they have rarely edited since then.

Again, they spent a large chunk of their time here vandalizing Wikipedia by deliberately inserting false information that they made no attempt to remove. When caught they asked us to keep it for the warm fuzzies and lols. Not in the hoax area, but in the mainspace where it would continue to perpetuate the hoax. That's not the actions of a serious editor and I stand by the block. He has given me enough reason to doubt that he will edit seriously and his comments here have done little to say otherwise, as he still doesn't realize what he did to spur the block. Since he hasn't realized them, here they are listed out:

You vandalized Wikipedia with your friends and created hoax pages.
Despite remaining sporadically active, you made no attempt to remove your hoax or discreetly inform others so they could remove it.
During the sporadic editing you blanked the Mazda article and inserted an article you were working on and did not fix your mistake.
When your actions were caught and the article was brought to AfD, your reaction was very flippant and you did not seem to show any remorse for creating the article.
You asked us to retain the page as an active entry because and I quote "does it not exist in the memories of those who were there for its imagination. Is that notable enough for it to stand as a memorial to something once so viscerally important, so vital to fifteen or so teenagers just starting to taste their freedom in the suburban depths of one of the world's smaller capital cities?"
You did not seem to understand how asking us to continue to retain and host a hoax page could itself be seen as a continued act of vandalism.
When responding to my posts here, you have shown no indication that you understood why asking for the page to remain was a bad move. You also showed no indication that you understood the guidelines for notability or sourcing.
Rather than acknowleding that your post at the AfD was a very, very poor choice you called me a bad administrator for not assuming that someone who has admitted a history of vandalism, has made some edits since then that can be seen as disruptive, seems to have trouble understanding notability and sourcing policy, and has asked for the retention of a hoax page would of course be a good contributor. In other words, you shifted from apologizing to making things that in my opinion run towards an WP:ADHOMINEM attack. It isn't in that area just yet, but it teeters very close in my opinion. What I wanted and was hoping for was for you to say something like this:

"I'm sorry that I vandalized Wikipedia during my youth and it was a poor choice for me to ask for the page to be retained on Wikipedia, as I now see that it can be seen as a potential further act of disruption as asking for a hoax page to remain harms rather than helps Wikipedia. I meant this all as a joke and I'm sorry that I didn't come on and fix my vandalism as I got older and periodically came back to Wikipedia to edit. I don't want to be seen as a flippant and possibly disruptive editor on Wikipedia, I want to edit seriously now that I've matured."

That's it. That's what I wanted. That's all you had to post in order to get me to unblock you. I even said that I was willing to unblock you as long as you showed that you really understood why what you've done so far was concerning. I wanted to make sure that you understood that your past hyjinx was inappropriate and that your flippant attitude was inappropriate. I don't like that I had to write this here, as I'm troubled that you didn't understand why your post at the AfD could be seen as further disruption and even approval of your past actions. I'm also troubled that rather than post this, you have called me a bad administrator and gotten your friends to come on here and post the same thing. The thing is, if my block was completely without merit then you would've been unblocked already via the UTRS appeal or by another admin, however you haven't been so far. It doesn't mean that another admin might not unblock you still, but the lack of a speedy unblock is fairly telling. It's still possible for you to get an unblock from someone, even maybe me, but you'd have to show that you really do understand the reasons I've posted above and why they can all be seen as problematic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to throw this in: I never blocked talk page access. If you could not edit the page under this account then that would have been the result of either an IP block (rare and requires some pretty serious violations of policy), an error on Wikipedia's part (ie, maintenance on a server), or computer errors on your end. The only other way that I can see this happening is if you were editing under another account that was blocked, which wouldn't be the case here since this isn't a case of sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you just made this into more than it really had to be here. All I wanted was something to assure me that the comment was tongue in cheek and that you really understood why your past actions were against policy and why asking for the page's retention was poorly thought out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have only minor points to make.

1 - http://i.imgur.com/xf4xoSW.png - IP... blocked by... Tokyogirl79.
2 - You are the only person thus far on Wikipedia to take my request to keep the page seriously.
3 - The reason my UTRS appeal did not unblock my account is because I didn't ask it to. My UTRS appeal solely requested access to my talk page such that I could argue my case on my talk page.
4 - You seem to be increasingly agitated. Rather than focusing on Wikipedia policy, you're now talking about what YOU personally wanted - I don't think Wikipedia has a part of the blocking policy that says you have to jump through hoops to *personally* appease an admin who has:

A: blocked you
and 
B: deleted legitimate contributions for no apparent reason.

Think on this. If I truly want to vandalise Wikipedia, I can create any number of accounts on any number of IPs I wish to do so. Funnily enough, I have better things to do with my time.

I've apologised already for my transgression in the past, and asked that legitimate articles be left out of this seemingly personal strike against me.

You have told me what I have to do to please you personally to get unblocked while trying to wipe out my contributions to the encyclopedia. I find that disturbing. TheKhakinator (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friend here (who for the record was definitely not asked to defend TK because I'm only making things worse for him). You've suffered a serious sense of humour failure in taking his comment at face value rather than as the a tongue-in-cheek confession it is. I get it, you're serious about Wikipedia, I don't mean for a minute to impugn your motives. But your initial indefinite block was clearly overzealous and, as far as I can tell based on Wikipedia policy, an abuse of your powers. When you ban someone--and I realise in Wikipedia a block is not the same as a ban, but to an infrequent user an indefinite block seems like the same thing as a permanent ban--for something they did close to a decade a go it's not surprising they're going to push back a bit and defend themselves rather than make a grovelling apology. If all you wanted was to be assured he'd learnt his lesson and was joking about asking for the hoax page to be kept, you should have assumed good faith (I'm sure as a Wikipedia admin you're sick of hearing that, but I think it's appropriate here) and asked for clarification rather than slapping him with a ban. It does genuinely concern me that you're standing by your actions when they are so fragrantly out of line with Wikipedia policy on blocking--if I'm wrong on this point, please demonstrate how. I'm sure an amicable resolution is possible if you'd accept and acknowledge that your initial actions were heavy handed. 114.242.248.173 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why above. What made his actions questionable was a mixture of things. First, it was that he showed signs of potential vandalism (or at the very least poor editing skills) after he claimed to have stopped vandalizing. If it was just that, then odds are I would've ignored that. However what really pushed it was that he left the page up for eight years, long after he claimed to have stopped vandalizing Wikipedia, and when explaining his actions he asked for it to be retained. That is not what a person would do if they were really serious about editing Wikipedia.

As far as the reasons list goes, it's actually not abnormal for someone to post that on a user page, especially when talking to a user who doesn't seem to understand why they were blocked. I posted the list and what I had initially wanted because you just don't seem to understand why your actions could be seen as concerning. You claim that the post was all done in humor, however when it comes to vandalism on Wikipedia we can't really assume that you're done and that all is copacetic, as you didn't really show any remorse for your actions nor did you ever explain why - despite claiming to have made positive contributions - you left the page up and never tried to remove it yourself or get someone else to do it for you. Your reaction to your past actions was pretty flippant and your edits since 2009 weren't overly stellar, so it's reasonable to be skeptical that you would edit in a positive manner. We've had plenty of people try to claim that something was humor or not serious, only to turn around and do the same actions later on. I've seen it happen in situations where I wasn't involved with any of the blocking or unblocking.

The page for Pellenc was deleted due to a lack of notability and sourcing. The article you created was one sentence long (not including the infobox) and was only "Pellenc Group is a manufacturer of harvesting tools and machinery based in France." It was only sourced with a link to the company's website, which cannot establish notability as it is a WP:PRIMARY source. The article as it was written completely failed WP:NCORP, as companies are not inherently notable by virtue of their existence. You would need to show where the company has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles written about them. I did look for sourcing but found nothing to establish NCORP, which is actually one of the toughest guidelines to pass on here. All I found were press releases, articles that were essentially re-worded press releases, posts in places Wikipedia would not consider to be a notability giving reliable source (ie, self-published blogs), and official company websites or routine database listings. The deletion was not made arbitrarily. I also did not delete it - I simply nominated it for deletion and another person deleted the page. Nominating one page for speedy deletion is not wiping Wikipedia of your contributions.

As far as the IP goes, that's a completely different thing from blocking you from accessing your talk page via your account. What that does is prevent you from circumventing the block. If you had logged in, you would have been able to post. The block I gave was the standard block that is used when blocking users using Twinkle. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie. The article wasn't that memorable for me. It was actually pretty wild when it came up for deletion because I got to relive some pretty great memories that I thought had been entirely lost. Maybe if it had come up I'd have nominated its deletion myself!

You have some good justification for removing Pellenc. You haven't provided any justification for why your actions completely contravene Wikipedia blocking policy. TheKhakinator (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now see, the thing that I am still asking for here if for you to show that you at least somewhat understood why your actions were problematic and why your flippant response at AfD would be seen as you condoning your past actions and an inappropriate response to getting caught having created a hoax page. Also, if you think that someone is acting irrationally, it's also a bad idea to go around telling someone that they're bad at their job and get your friends to come on to the talk page to echo those sentiments. If you had left out the other parts and just had this:

"I truly apologize to anyone I offended with my antics on this website in my youth. All I ask is that my legitimate contributions are not made to suffer in their name."

Now that would've led to me unblocking you. Also, if you had left off the "You haven't provided any justification for why your actions completely contravene Wikipedia blocking policy.", that would also have made me reconsider the block. You made a post at AfD that was poorly written and thought out, as you made a joke about past vandalism and a remark about keeping vandalism active that made an admin concerned that you don't take policy seriously. That, paired with some poor editing skills that involved blanking a major article, was concerning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I need to make sure that you won't vandalize Wikipedia in the future, that you will make good edits, and that you will fix any past vandalism you've done and not keep it around as a piece of memorabilia. You made a post that gave a reasonable amount of doubt that you would do that, since you left a hoax page active for eight years and asked for its retention. I need to know that your unblock won't just give you the ability to disrupt Wikipedia again. That's the gist of all of this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, if you had left off the "You haven't provided any justification for why your actions completely contravene Wikipedia blocking policy.", that would also have made me reconsider the block."

So pointing out an administrator is violating Wikipedia policy is grounds for a user to remain blocked? Are you for real? 61.148.243.71 (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I appeal for clemency. I acknowledge the conduct that led to my block and I request a second chance.

I believe my block is unjustified because of the following:

- "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"

- "In general, once a matter has become "cold" (8 years have passed) and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate."

- "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early."

- "Blocks should not be used: [...] where there is no current conduct issue of concern."

- "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block" (Blocking admin has repeatedly indicated doubting their own actions)

- "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior."

- Blocking admin has refused to reconsider the block on the basis that I pointed out their block violates policy.

TheKhakinator (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just a little above you refer to your past vandalism as "great memories", after excessive commentary by Tokyogirl79 on why your stance is problematic. I don't think it's in Wikipedia's best interest that you try and create more such memories. Huon (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2017 (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'm sorry you took it that way - I'll try and be clearer. "The article wasn't that memorable for me. It was actually pretty wild when it came up for deletion because I got to relive some pretty great memories that I thought had been entirely lost. Maybe if it had come up I'd have nominated its deletion myself!" The great memories were time spent with friends - as I said, the article was't that memorable itself. It's a shame, I used to really enjoy contributing to what I thought was a great project, that ran on policy and the hard work of its contributors. I guess things change. A pity. TheKhakinator (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) As I've posted repeatedly, the reason why I blocked them was that they admitted to past vandalism and had created a page that remained on Wikipedia for eight years, during which they made no attempt to remove the page or otherwise point it out as a hoax. When it was discovered they adopted a very flippant attitude that did not show any true remorse for their actions and they asked for the page to remain on Wikipedia. Further examining their edits showed that in their very limited amount of edits they made past that point, they blanked an entry to post content for another article. Even if that was just them using an existing article as a sandbox, they made no effort to fix what they had done. I did nominate an article of theirs for speedy deletion and they immediately assumed bad faith on my part despite me earlier stating how the article failed NCORP. (You can see this explanation above, posted at 15 February.) My reason for blocking was that given that they had made no attempt to remove the hoax article (which can be seen as them trying to perpetuate the hoax, which goes against the idea of a responsible editor), they asked for the page to remain, and their overall tone gave off the impression that they just didn't really care about guidelines. I had reason to believe that there was a good chance that they just wouldn't take anything seriously here and would possibly decide to create another hoax or joke page just for the lulz. My initial post to them upon blocking was a request to show that they're actually serious about editing and they lashed out in response. They seem to be kind of deliberately obtuse about some of the points I've made, such as the NCORP notability rationale, so I have to wonder if they're ignoring those points out of anger or because they're taking the opportunity to troll, looking for me to make a response. It'd be nice if someone came in here and just stuck a fork in this already. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, they didn't take Wikipedia seriously then and their edits as a whole during that time are suspect. Their edits since then were far from stellar (meaning that we can't gauge their seriousness based on those) and their attitude at the AfD came across as so non-serious and flippant that it seemed like they were equally likely to do the same thing now, if the mood struck them. If they can't respond to what's actually a pretty serious offense on Wikipedia with a straightforward and serious response, then that made me concerned that they would just do the same things here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This appears to be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Sunsets are Pretty (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: I've seen plenty of bad behaviour on the Jay Weatherill article, and haven't seen you do anything to fix it. I thought you said you were the Wikipedia admin? Or are you only here to pick fights with hard working editors like myself? Classic you. I'd love to help maintain the page but you know... blocked... TheKhakinator (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aiming station

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]