User talk:Unggoydiyos

January 2013

Hello, I'm Pinethicket. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Parasitism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pinethicket (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brood parasite, you may be blocked from editing. Pinethicket (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, I'm Seaphoto. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Tagalog language 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, Seaphoto^Talk 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasies

Why is it it that when I contribute hours of content, days, and weeks of contributions, you start your complaint. I don't know what you're referring to. But the usual reason for deletion of material is that it's worthless. This is a possibility worth considering when wondering why yours was deleted.

You seem upset now about the deletion of this lot. It includes such gems as "Most [Filipinos] do not think any higher than 100" and "There are 40 million people in California that are fluent in Tagalog." According to US census figures, just 626 thousand Californian residents spoke Filipino at home in 2000. So what you write looks like mere fantasy to me; reading it, I have no interest in anything else you might say about the Tagalog language and its speakers.

Do you have any evidence for the stuff that you write? If so, present it. If on the other hand you just enjoy fantasizing about the Tagalog language and its speakers, please fantasize on your own website, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unggoydiyos is clearly a vandal/troll, as this and this show, and should simply be blocked. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you're right. How unobservant of me. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

Because I am the only intelligent person here that is not a fucking idiot 12 year old with no education or experience in life. Remove this fucking block immediately or I'm going to the administrators and the media with this fucking bullshit. Unggoydiyos (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Go right ahead; the person who blocked you is one of the "administrators". Me too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:48, 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.