User talk:Thinot

February 2007

Thank you for experimenting with the page Demi Moore on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Ashlee Simpson page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

April 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Laurence Fishburne. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. emerson7 | Talk 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Thinot, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. emerson7 | Talk 08:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Emerson7. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Captain-tucker (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Captain-tucker. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Mattie ^TK 21:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Captain-tucker. Mygerardromance (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Pedro : Chat 21:27, 10 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Sirs and Madams,

I understand exactly why I was blocked, and I shamefully admit to my wrongdoings(vandalism) on the Wikipedia website. My actions were not personal, or meant to hurt anyone, though they could have undoubtedly had those results; truthfully, I just became a little edit-happy.

If I am eventually unblocked, I promise never to vandalize this website ever again. In fact, if and when I am unblocked, I will correct a minor vandalism change I made previously that has gone, and was meant to go, unnoticed. As well, I will join one of the many volunteer efforts setup on this site, likely either the Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism Unit or the Wikipedia Typo Team.

Thank You for you time, patience, assistance, and understanding,
Thinot

Thinot (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While your apology sounds sincere, if you want to incrrease the chances of having your block lifted, you will give us a diff of the "minor vandalism" now rather than later. —Travis ^talk 00:30, 11 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Sirs and Madams,

By bring up my minor vandalism {in the Icicle article [specifically the transposing of the "l" and the "I" of the word Icicles (to lcicIes) in the caption of the image of icicles on a tree]}, I was not meaning to be cocky, or to taunt or offend anyone. I believed that by admitting an unrecognized act of my vandalism, and promising to revert it, I would show my sincerity and sorrow. This was just a big misunderstanding. Please forgive me.

Once again, thank you for your time, patience, assistance, and understanding;
Thinot
Thinot (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed your edits back to early 2007. Your first edit was the addition of the word "cunt" to an article, and your behaviour has been broadly similar ever since. How you failed to be blocked before I cannot imagine, but I am not prepared to overlook an editing pattern of vandalism extending back over almost two years. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 11 December 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.

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. Pedro : Chat 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to any admin reversing this block. However edits like this do not create much confidence to be honest. I personally am not prepared to unblock. Pedro : Chat 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a {{decline}} comment above. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The damage a single vandal can do is minuscule, even under the worst situation. You sound sincere and I am willing to give you a chance. However, I am going to be watching your contributions and I will reblock you indefinitely at the slightest transgression. It's far easier to gain a good reputation than it is to gain a bad one, and you will undoubtedly find yourself on the watch list of a number of administrators (myself included) who are going to scrutinize every edit you make. I don't often agree to unblock repeat vandals and I hope you appreciate and live up to the trust I'm willing to show.

Request handled by: Trusilver 03:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]