User talk:Wejenemahwe

Welcome!

Hello, Wejenemahwe, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wikipenney, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ZanySatsuma 23:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipenney

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Wikipenney, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Wikipedia. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Wikipedia, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. ZanySatsuma 23:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at RFPP

Please make your request at Template talk:Protection table. The Talk page is not protected, and you are not requesting a change in the protection of a page. General Ization ^Talk 03:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is semi protected for 6 months due to persistent block evasion . Please edit it. I have to wait a few days to become autoconfirmed. Wejenemahwe (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now that it is protected. But please explain the urgency. It seems highly unusual (and more than a little suspect) that an account less than 24 hours old is creating new templates and requesting that tables that explain Wikipedia protection policy be modified. I'd like some understanding of why the change is necessary and how you determined that it was. General Ization ^Talk 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Wikipædia— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Uw-badword4im

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-badword4im requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. General Ization ^Talk 03:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

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 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 ~~~~}}. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

Please unblock me! I won't sock or disrupt or vandalize, because after logging out of the account after blocked, the automatically logs in after an IP address changes. Wejenemahwe (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am logged in, so it is not block evasion. Wejenemahwe (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Certainly not from this. General Ization ^Talk 13:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my mind. Can you please do this unblock for me? Wejenemahwe (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. General Ization ^Talk 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not???? Please can you do this for me? I promise not to disrupt Wikipedia, nor sock. Wejenemahwe (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. Wejenemahwe (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please!!!!! Why are'nt you replying? Please accept my unblock request please!!! Wejenemahwe (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second request of Unblock

Request I: I am asking you to unblock me, because I will not disrupt wikipedia. Wejenemahwe (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Request II:[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).

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

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not cause damage or disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead. Wejenemahwe (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:14, 26 June 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.

Note: I did not copy and paste this answer.

I rather doubt that, given that the text of your unblock request appears at WP:GAB. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request III:

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).

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

Request reason:

I promise I will never disrupt nor sock, and I will make constructive edits instead.

Decline reason:

Thank you for being honest about your accounts, below. I'm familiar with a number of those accounts and the disruption you caused with them, and I think the best you're likely to get now is the WP:Standard Offer. That means a minimum of six month with no edits, no socks, no nothing, and then make a new unblock request - on your original account. There's no guarantee you will be unblocked, and it might sound tough, but it's better than you'd have been offered had you not revealed your past accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 26 June 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.

You need to unblock me, because I will become autoconfirmed while I am blocked, and I cannot create any other account. Wejenemahwe (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say you will not sock, so please tell us which other accounts you have used. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this computer, I used accounts: User:Darrin DeYoung (password known, blocked), User:Suck my big balls (password known, blocked), User:AntiAntiSpamBot 2 (created on another wiki, password known, blocked), User:WMLab999 (password known, blocked), User:Gluckboteer (password forgotten, blocked), User:Nanjig (password known, blocked), User:Vanjaginije (password forgotten), User:Googlizing-google (password forgotten), User:Big fat ass (password known, blocked), User:Maenum Ligarim (password forgotten, blocked). That's all for now, but can you please unblock me, as I said I will not sock, and I want to become autoconfirmed while I am not blocked? Wejenemahwe (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still blocked, so please do the unblock now! Wejenemahwe (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "In this computer", but are there any other accounts you have used on any other computers? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have one. It is: User:Maleidys Perez (has email, password known, blocked). Now, can you do unblock me? Wejenemahwe (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, see my decline of your unblock request, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Or can I use the UTRS to unblock?) But please unblock me now. I saw your declined unblock request. Please accept the non template recent unblock . Wejenemahwe (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Talk page access revoked - wait at least six months and then make a request at your original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To any admin who reviews an unblock request here, this user is massively abusive and has been for months now. Maleidys Perez (talk · contribs) and the various socks have made numerous pointless unblock requests. And when they go and set up a new account, the edits are typically outright vandalism. I very strongly suggest this user doesn't have the maturity needed to edit here. Additionally, their requests to WP:UTRS were so abusive, they were blocked from there for six months. They have repeatedly promised to stop vandalising and stop setting up sockpuppet accounts, but have repeatedly violated that promise. They know about WP:SO but given the continued violations since they were told about that, even the standard offer is a pretty faint hope. They appear to be working hard to get an official WP:BAN here, though I'm not sure why. --Yamla (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just found the UTRS ban at User talk:Maleidys Perez#May 2017, and came here to suggest they need a good bit longer than six months to give them some chance of growing up a bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the admission above has helpfully connected two sockmasters and several previously unconnected accounts, so I've re-tagged all relevant user pages as being socks of User:Maleidys Perez. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]