User talk:WhiteWindow

Welcome!

Hello, WhiteWindow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as You are an idiot, 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! Gparyani (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of You are an idiot

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 You are an idiot 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 web content, but 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. 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 "Click here to 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. Gparyani (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Could you explain why you think (trade name for drug) is an implausible redirect to (chemical name for drug) ? DS (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain: You have created an implausible redirect to a page. Now, the redirect has been deleted. WhiteWindow (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator who deleted it, has restored it. Because he agreed with me that it was not at all implausible. Why did you think it was implausible in the first place? DS (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of William Pina (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 03:16, 12 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

False positive. Remember that I am just new here. I can now make constructive edits. WhiteWindow (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think it's a false positive. As noted several times before, you must clear up the block on your original account before editing again. You also may not edit without logging in. Kuru (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Listen. My original account, William Pina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is globally locked. My IP address was autoblocked, but an admin just manually blocked my IP. I can't unblock William Pina, because of the lock. I need to do something. WhiteWindow (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whatever it is you need to do, requesting unblock in this fashion is not going to work. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 13 March 2015 (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 suggest that the "something" not be editing Wikipedia. Take the WP:STANDARDOFFER and maybe you'll be unblocked. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:28, 13 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to make an unlock request for my original account, but "declined". I afraid I need to edit anonymously, but blocked. I'm getting worried, because I am blocked. I'm not a sockpuppeteer. I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia nicely. WhiteWindow (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that your main account is blocked, this account is a block evading sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (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.

Well, first, unblock is the correct term. Second, if your unblock request was declined you shouldn't be editing, not even anonymously; the WP:STANDARDOFFER is all you should try to do. You don't seem to have processed and learned from your mistakes, and that is why you are still blocked. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:06, 16 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm so sorry for the page I created, User:William Pina, which led me to a block. Next time, please do not block my account. I'm not disruptive. I'm now calm. WhiteWindow (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for your userpage, you were blocked - per this ANI discussion - for being incompetent (mostly shown through your complete misunderstanding of redirects... which according to the top of this page doesn't seem to have changed) and throwing tantrums when said incompetence was pointed out to you. You clearly still do not understand why you were blocked, nor our other policies here. Therefore, I don't believe that unblocking you is a benefit to this encyclopedia at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:58, 17 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Duh. I think this was a false positive. I was trying to behave nicely. How would you think that I was evading a block? This is not fair. WhiteWindow (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your account on Meta-Wiki was confirmed to be a sockpuppet. As both accounts utilize a SUL, the accounts listed there are the same accounts here. Also, due to the number of unblock requests, I have revoked your talk page access. Mike V • Talk 05:46, 17 March 2015 (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.