User talk:Who Am I Why Am I Here

I need to know where to go to get the wikiboxes to place on my user page

Hi there! The Userboxes are found in many different places on Wikipedia. Wiki projects which you wish to participate often have userboxes available on their project pages. For Example: Military History Userboxes.

I hope that has helped. Philip.t.day talk 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pope John Paul II, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. While I agree that PJPII was well respected within and and outside the Catholic Church, we'll need a solid reference to compare his "enlightenment" to that of other Popes, and probably won't be calling him "bad-ass." ke4roh (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do/where can I go to become a moderator.

We all moderate - or at least I hope we do. Just have a conversation on a talk page, correct mistakes in articles, and you're doing it. If you want more, WP:RFA has instructions on requesting to be made an administrator, but the bar is pretty high. I've been around for 8 years and only occasionally need admin privileges. They want a bazillion (trending towards 20 thousand) edits before approving an admin request, and frankly, I don't have time to make a bazillion edits. Check your edit count here -> {{my edit count}}. At this moment, you've got 13 edits. Good luck! -- ke4roh (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Who Am I Why Am I Here, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 02:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. –MuZemike 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Please explain what you were going to do with Communism Is the Only Way (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do apologize for that. I had no idea that it is illegal to have multiple accounts. All that I was planning to do with that was to have another account for which I can edit with. I was not going to do anything malicious. I apologize for the trouble.

Accept reason:

OK, I see you understand that and will unblock you as a result. –MuZemike 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship

Please don't try to re-add your nomination to the list of WP:RFA. You have less than 100 edits, so it won't pass. –BuickCentury Driver 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your account contributions

Hi - you supported an account for administrative privileges at AFD - I replied to your support vote with this comment - comment about the above accounts support vote - This account has got 69 edits to the en wikipedia - searching for the recently created accounts contributions to articles, they have made only one, this single uncited detrimental vandalistic contribution -He is considered one of the most enlightened pope's in history, and is considered a bad-ass by people of all religions. - as such the accounts value for supporting possible accounts to administrator status is worse than worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 6:14 pm, Today (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above: stop nominating people for adminship! To be frank, your nomination would do more harm than good, as Off2riorob says. You have few edits, and the only one to an article was a test edit at best or vandalism at worse. For an RfA to be successful, not only does the nominee have to meet the community's standards, so does the nominator! As such an inexperienced editor, how can we know that you have any understanding about what someone needs to be an admin? If someone accepts your nomination, how does that show good judgement on their part, for the same reason My advice to you would be to forget about adminship (either for yourself or others) for some time, and do some good editing on articles - that's what Wikipedia is all about! Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse Phantomsteve.alt's fervor. People spend a lot of time looking at RfA candidates. It takes hundreds or thousands of hours of people reviewing logs and considering the user's various contributions to get someone through the RfA process. And while Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we do have a near-byzantine set of rules, policy, and guidelines to keep things running smoothly. See Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. -- ke4roh (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined RfA

Hi, Who, I have declined your nomination for adminship based on your short edit history. The character of the nominator reflects on the nominee, and if I'm to have a successful RfA, it will take a highly reputable Wikipedian to make the nomination. Please don't take offense - I'm honored that you think me worthy. Wikipedia's a pretty big system these days, and there's lots that goes into making it as good as it is. -- ke4roh (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New User

Thanks very much for supporting me and I hope to make the project soon. Have you used twinkle:Friendly for welcoming new users/Ip address? Wilbysuffolk talk 06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please stop disrupting WP:RFA with malformed requests. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

running for adminship, round two

I'd strongly suggest not running for administrator until you have at least a year and a few thousand edits. You only ran a few weeks ago. The kindest advice you can expect to receive is at WP:NOTNOW.

You really need to contribute to Wikipedia, especially through significant content-related edits. Find a short article, research and write it out.

Finally, use the edit summary and preview button! Your edits to WP:RFA have been seen as suspicious by many, partly because you don't communicate your intention and re-edit the page. tedder (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop "supporting" yourself at your RfA. This is not allowed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent RfA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 131 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! Baseball Watcher 00:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have no idea why you thought it would be a good idea to create an attack account. Whatever your reasons, that account has been blocked and so have you. You may contest this block by adding the text {{tlx below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 01:54, 11 May 2011 (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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First off I would like to say that I did not create this account. I do share a computer and therefore an IP with other people. It seems as if one of them created this troll account, and not myself. I do understand that it seems as if it was me, but I have learned my lesson. I got busted before, by creating a second account. After I realized this was illegal, I read the rules and haven't broken one since. I apologize for any trouble that this may have caused. I just hope that this does not damage my chances of staying on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

The account was created exclusively to harass another user, immediately after you'd been criticized by that user. It is beyond credibility that this was someone else who happens to share your computer or IP address. – iridescent 12:20, 11 May 2011 (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 don't understand - if this isn't your account, how come you're logged into it and posting here using it? It suggests that the account is compromised as people other than the account owner (ie you) have access to it, and so it should not be unblocked. Or am I missing something here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This account is not the one in question. I don't know what the one in question is. What happened was that my IP was banned because of the troll account, so therefore this account got banned. I did not start the troll account (which isn't this one), but I am being blamed for it. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that you created User:F uck Eagles247 after I strongly opposed your recent RfA. It is no surprise that the account was created after you had been inactive for about 20 minutes. You will receive no sympathy and your "contributions" to Wikipedia have been of no help to anyone. Eagles 24/7 sock (C) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my previous behavior. I did lie, and I did create the account in question. It was a stupid move on my part, and I accept my punishment. However, I do not think it appropriate to ban me indefinitely. I ask for a ban of a month or two, so I can learn my lesson and eventually get back to editing. I know this may be a hard thing to convince you to do, but a ban that is not indefinite may be, if anything, more of a punishment then an indefinite ban. This way, I can't create a new account, and I still get punished. So please, think this over. Eagle 247, I do apologize personally to you.

Decline reason:

You are free to request unblock after a suitable period of time; I'm afraid right now you've made it clear that you simply cannot be trusted. Perhaps read WP:STANDARDOFFER. Kuru (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not actually want to be unblocked. I would like to have my account deleted. This situation has completely turned me off from Wikipedia, and I no longer want to be an editor. If there is a way for me to delete my account, please say so.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. The closest thing we have to account deletion is the right to vanish, although this is typically (but not exclusively) afforded to users in good standing. You should notice, though, that this is the right for the person to vanish, not the right for the account to do so. It does not grant you a "fresh start". Also, if you are not asking to be unblocked, you should not use the unblock template. If you have more questions such as these, just post the question on your talk page and add {{helpme}}. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:54, 12 May 2011 (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 blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

75.30.96.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Creating attack accounts

Blocking administrator: Tnxman307 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You are blocked directly. Sandstein 08:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you must punish me, that is fine. But, let the other people who have my same IP address still edit, as that is fair.

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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been a while, and I thought about what I have done. It has been about a month since I committed the crimes that I did, and I now realize that they are wrong. I would like to be allowed to edit once again, and be able to redeem myself.

Decline reason:

Awhile? You created an account to attack people, lied, and were blocked not even a month ago. See WP:OFFER, although you would have to prove that you are actually going to contribute to an encyclopedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 5 June 2011 (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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has now been somewhere around two months since I was banned. And well, I have thought about it. Attacking someone that I do not personally know is very literally the worst thing that I could have done on this site. I admit that it was a horrible thing to do. I previously had no idea the seriousness of creating multiple accounts. I have read over a lot of rules and now see why I should not have multiple accounts. Worse yet, I was abusing with those multiple accounts. These are both offenses that deem the punishment for which I received. However, I have thought about what I did. I believe that I am ready to be allowed to edit once again. If you do not believe me, I have some ideas for which I can be required to hold myself to good behavior. I am more then willing to enter into some sort of agreement for which I will edit and seriously improve upon one article. I know a program like this exists, and would be thrilled to take part in it. And after I have proven myself, I would be willing to take part in other programs, as well. I read about a user adoption of sorts. I would take part in this in order to have someone to guide me through my early editing. And if none of that works, I would be willing to agree to something that requires me to behave, or not allow me to edit for some 5 months. Not just on an account, but also anonymously. By this I mean getting blocked via IP. I ask of you to think these things over. I know that it will not be an easy decision, but I do ask that you think about it. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The standard offer, which you were linked to above, is to wait six months. If you agree to this, that's great, but you still have several more months to go. This does include not editing while logged out, just in case that wasn't clear (that is block evasion and will remove any chance you have of being unblocked). I can see with checkuser there have been some recent edits, but as they were to the IP address's talk page only I'll overlook them for now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please, I have been good.

Decline reason:

Which part of "at least 6 months" in WP:OFFER was the most confusing? When you return at the end of November, you will have to prove a) that you understand why you were blocked, b) provide proof that you will never do it again, and c) prove that you have made beneficial edits on another Wikimedia project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 26 September 2011 (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).

Who Am I Why Am I Here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been close to two years since I last appealed to be unblocked, and it has been over a year since I was last malicious under my IP. I am sure that you get this all of the time, but I truly do feel awful about my actions. There was absolutely no excuse for malicious editing, and even less for being a troll and attacking other members. I cannot defend my actions because they are indefensible; I merely can ask for your forgiveness. As I said, it has been two years since the incidence with this account, and over a year since I was a terrible person under my IP. When I think back to that, I cannot bring myself to think of why I thought it a good idea to be malicious towards the pages of people that I do not like. I guess I could rightfully say that I was young and dumb, but I feel even saying that is trying to hide behind some shallow defense. I have no defense to hide behind, and I have to stand true to my actions, and ask for forgiveness. And that is what I am here to do, now. It has been a while, and I ask that my block be lifted, so that I am able to edit again. At the behest of some members in the help chat, I looked into appealing to the Arbitration Committee. However, one of the criteria for that was that I had exhausted all other options, which I will not have done, until I try for another appeal here. I originally addressed trying to become unblocked by creating another account, Think for Yourselves. It was never my intention to evade the block, I was just unsure of the course of action to take. If you will look on that talk place, I came clean on the actions of this account. I was referred to go to the help chat, and was instructed by Philus and Huon to both use this account again, and look at arbitration. As I felt that I didn't quite meet the criteria for arbitration, I found it best to do this last appeal here, before resorting to arbitration. I will agree to whatever terms I have to, and I will go through whatever process is necessary in order to edit once again. I thank you for your time, and I hope that there is an agreeable way to resolve this situation. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural declone, you are now free to edit as User:Think for Yourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 18 June 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.

Please see my remarks at User talk:Think for Yourselves Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]