User talk:Widereceiver19

Teeterdil is a fairly new game, and i want you to give it a chance, many people play it where i am from, and mostly a younger crowd. Just because you aren't able to find it on Google doesn't make it non-notable. Thank you for undertsanding -Teeterdil Creator dimitri

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. Heimstern Läufer 02:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete websites without knowing what you are doing. This is a big game, its just not world wide yet, i've seen many articles like this on wikipedia, i don't see how ours is diffrent, until then fick dich

With regards to your comments on User talk:Merope: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 02:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sir, im sorry, i just want you to understand what teeterdil is in my life. I was surpised nobody created it earlier than me. it was created last year and it has grown to a regional game that people love, give it a chance!

{written before the above comment, was edit conflicted} And you can add to my previous warning a warning about your comment "fick dich" on this page. Saying "fuck you" no more acceptable because you wrote it in another language. I warn you: You are playing with fire here. Users who continue to use personal attacks are often blocked from editing by the administrators. Please give users reasons not to delete your article rather than attacking them for supporting its deletion. Heimstern Läufer 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry Heimstern, but.. Everytime i give you guys a reason you get all strict, do u hear me when i say that it is a big part of many lives in the bay area. Everytime i say something, someone gives a new random reson for deletion, give it a chance please

Listen, I have nothing against your game. But this is an encyclopedia for notable content. Even if it could be demonstrated to be a regionally important game, it might not pass an AfD discussion because sometimes even being famous within a region is not enough to convince the community. As it stands, it would at least have to be verified. It's not my decision at any rate; it's the community's decision. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come i have seen many useless articles about things here, i think Teeterdil is a good game and is definetely more of a useful artilcle than a lot of others.

Btw, i like what wiki has done, its amazing, i just want to contribute my knowlege and life's passion

Bartolo Colon

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bartolo Colon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

One more edit like [1], [2], [3] or [4] and you're going to blocked from editing. --Stormie 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This account has now been permanently blocked. Sorry to do this, but you had plenty of warning. - Lucky 6.9 17:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Widereceiver19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want this IP and username to be unblocked because i am sorry about my actions, i am fairly new to wikipedia and have used it wrongly, it won't happen again i promise. Please find it in your hearts to forgive me and i will only contribute to wikipedia. Thank you

Decline reason:

If you will no longer disrupt Wikipedia but rather help out, you are welcome to create a new account. However because your current account has been used for nothing but vandalism it will not be unblocked. If you are creating a new account but still getting a message that the account is blocked it is because you are using the same IP as this blocked account. To avoid this you should wait for at least 24 hours after your last login into this blocked account.--Konstable 15:13, 16 September 2006 (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.

Per your e-mail request, I have unblocked you. You are welcome to contribute in a positive manner. - Lucky 6.9 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks bloods you be hella pimpin -widereceiver19

Short articles

Welcome back. :) Re. that contribution you made on that Texas Rangers pitcher: It's way too short for inclusion as it stands since it's only an introductory sentence. Take a look at articles on other sports figures to get an idea of what goes into an article. Even a good short article with his date of birth, minor league/college info, ERA, which arm he throws with, etc. would be welcome. If the article is deleted, don't worry. Just restart it under the same title with a lot more info. - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a "hella pimpin" cleanup. Our friend Mr. Volquez now has a proper (if brief) stub article. I hope this'll help you. I just pulled the info off of his page on the MLB website and rewrote it into an article. - Lucky 6.9 06:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It's already grown! Go to Edinson Volquez to see what it's become. You are going to love it. Without your initial entry, we probably still wouldn't have an article. Talk to you soon! - Lucky 6.9 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you lucky, see what i can do for wikipedia? lol. i will contribue with sports a lot. Thats why i was sad that you guys deleted the teeterdil article. I play many sports -Thanks- Widereceiver19

Dan Meyer

Please don't move pages unless you create an diambig page soon after as it's pointless to have Dan Meyer redirecting to Dan Meyer (first baseman). Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do u make a disambig page, thanks

Hi, I have deleted several pages associated with Dan Meyer and the several page moves you did. I think that I got what you were shooting for, namely, a page referring to the first baseman, a page referring to the pitcher, and a disambiguation page with both of them on it. It was kind of hard to figure out what was going on, so if somehow I deleted the wrong page(s), please leave me a message here or on my talk page and let me know what is going on. --- Deville (Talk) 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you deville, i was trying to make adisambig page for the two dan meyers, but i kept running into problems, hanks for sorting it out, as u can tell im not that advanced at this. thanks - widereceiver19

Rich Guzman

Can you point to any evidence at all that this person actually exists, worked as an ESPN analyst, and said the things you claim? People who post hoaxes to Wikipedia may be blocked from editing. Andrew Levine 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 month

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, feel free to come back, but please make useful contributions instead, and refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. Andrew Levine 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 6 months

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, feel free to come back, but please make useful contributions instead, and refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. Andrew Levine 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Widereceiver19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well I have not vandalized anything and every article I have contributed to is legitamite in my eyes, I hope I will be unblocked, because this is ridiculous. I did not do anything. If I did I would like you to show me, instead of blocking me because you have a grudge against me or something. Thank You Widereceiver19 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yea i just checked my contributions, and I have not vandalized once! I would really like you to prove to me that I have vandalized. I cannot believe I got blocked. Please understand that I have done no wrong at all. Widereceiver19 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're forgetting we admins have access to deleted articles. "Jeffism is a religion that worships Jeff Moita, a middle aged man that lives in Castro Valley, California...It is better than Scientology, because Jeff Moita actually exists and no idiots like Tom Cruise worship him." That is definitely vandalism, so block upheld. -- Netsnipe ► 05:31, 17 November 2006 (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).

Widereceiver19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You guys are unbelievably unfair. I created the article Jeffism, i thought it was legitamite, all u have to do is delete it if you do not agree with it not block me for 6 months. What did I do? It is not vandalism. I made an article that you thought didnt belong on wiki... why does that cause a fat block to happen. I know you hate me or something, but you can't just block me

Decline reason:

You're far more likely to be unblocked if you admit your wrongdoing and, I don't know, make us think you won't pull that sort of thing in the future. Just a thought. Luna Santin 07:32, 22 November 2006 (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).

Widereceiver19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, I made an article that was not worthy of wikipedia and put "garbage" in the article, and i was blocked. I now know not to put this garbage in articles that i create. I really hope you understand that I didn't do much to get blocked, but if it was enough to get blocked, i will never do it again. Thank You.

Decline reason:

Judging from your immediate return to vandalism after the latest 1 month block expired, it is likely that you'll return to the same thing again if your are being unblocked now. You are welcomed to return after the block expires. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:40, 23 November 2006 (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).

Widereceiver19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

O I get it, it is because I am black huh? Yea, if a black guy is on wikipedia, he is going to vandalize. I see. Can't a black guy do good on wikipedia? You are all racists. Unblock me now before I get my gang to put a cap in yo ass

Decline reason:

I really don't apprehend a valid reason for unblocking in your request, and your temperament in your recent {{unblock}}s, to the extent, at least, that you are writing other-than-facetiously, leads one to fear that you, were you unblocked, you would continue to disrupt the substantive workings of the project and to denigrate other editors with whom you ought to collaborate. To be sure, if you are interested in contributing to the project and are prepared to comport your editing with our policies, you should surely feel free to edit Wikipedia with an entirely new account (such editing is neither proscribed by WP:BLOCK nor by WP:SOCK, although if you should use a new account to disrupt or vandalize the project in a fashion similar to that in which you have perhaps edited with this account, you will properly be straightaway indefinitely blocked or banned). Joe 20:23, 24 November 2006 (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.

Indefinitely blocked

Since you have been operating the abusive sockpuppet account User:Sportsguru9999 while this account has been blocked, your block has been extended to indefinite status. Gwernol 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]