User talk:Worthadonkey

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

Welcome, Worthadonkey!

Hello, Worthadonkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Wolf530, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia, and I certainly do I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

Here are a few thoughts that I think will help you on your way...

Don't worry too much about being perfect -- very few of us are! If you want a fast way to learn how to avoid the little faux-pas around here, we have a page called "avoiding common mistakes" that will give you a head start.
Need more help? Check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, first. If that's not helpful enough, you can go to my talk page and click the + button next to "edit" to ask me a question. Or, you can type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Whenever you're using a talk page, don't forget to sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. It helps us keep track of who is saying what!
Looking for something to do? Click "Random Page" on your sidebar (on the left). Or, check out the "open tasks" list.
Before you do anything else, be sure to tell us about yourself! Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page as well -- I like getting new messages just as much as anyone else.
Wherever you go, remember: be BOLD!

I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. Again, welcome -- and enjoy being a Wikipedian! --Wolf530 (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, (Not)worthadonkey.

Sir, (Not)worthadonkey, with your due apology, I am reverting your edits from Hinduism. Though, appealing and appreciatable it will meet lot of objections. Pl. place your matter on talk page for discussion before including in the article.

Once again apologising for removal of your edit.

Swadhyayee 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Academies@Englewood, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See this link for details regarding your recent vandalism. It will not be tolerated. Alansohn 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Christianity in India

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Christianity in India. 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. --thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 14:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Ravitz

A tag has been placed on Mitchell Ravitz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hatch68 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Passenger Pigeon, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hatch68 04:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academies @ Englewood

I removed your edits to the Academies @ Englewood page for the following reasons:

Nothing you added was sourced or verifiable.
Everything you added was all opinion.
Your additions were nothing more but slander and hatred being expressed for rival dwight morrow high school. Please contribute more constructively to wikipedia.

Northjersey 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I removed your edits. Some lines you wrote can not be in the article unless you can cite a source in a newspaper. For example, "Dwight Morrow Students do not know how to manage their time wisely," can not be included in the article unless you can find a source. That sentence is an opinion and may even be considered an attack. This is an encyclopedia, not the opinion section of the bergen record. The only way that line can be included in this article is if you can find it in any publsihed source. And it would have to be in quotes. Everything from the Dwight Morrow point of view can be found in the Bergen Record (a published source). Please do not add your personal opinions back into the article. Thank you. Northjersey 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-The controversy section is still biased. It shows only the side of Dwight Morrow, not academy students. I think either it should all be deleted (except for information with a specific source) or people should stop deleting all the information that is seen on the A@E side of the DM vs AE conflict.

Christina McHale

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Christina McHale are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Valrith 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Christina McHale did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Valrith 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning

Contributions to any article must be sourced in a verifiable manner. "People who know her told me so" does not qualify as verifiable. Local newspaper coverage, for example, is a verifiable source; "She told me so herself" is not. (And please refrain from vandalizing people's user pages the way you did that of Valrith earlier tonight.)--Orange Mike 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Test

Thank you for experimenting with the page Hanuman on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. TheRingess (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Republic Party (United States), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Natalie 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Republican Party (United States), you will be blocked from editing. Quadomatic 19:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (last warning)[reply]

Tiger

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Tiger, you will be blocked from editing. Quadomatic 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (last warning)[reply]

Christina McHale

Hi Worthadonkey, thanks for recreating Christina McHale. However, it was recently decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina McHale to delete that article, so please don't repost the same content unless that decision is overturned by DRV. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 06:55Z

Blocked for vandalism

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Fire Star 火星 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As you have promised not to vandalise further, I am provisionally unblocking you. However, any more vandalism will result in a longer block than before. Request handled by: Trebor 17:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina McHale

Hi Worthadonkey, I see you've recreated Christina McHale and Christina mchale again. If you have new information on why Wikipedia should have an article on the subject, that was not known during the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina McHale, please open a Deletion review discussion. Otherwise, don't just recreate the article. Regards —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 02:36Z

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Trebor 15:43, 7 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock my block because I do not feel that writing Christina McHale is vandalism. I have cited my main source of information for Christina McHale. Other parts of the article are all from people who know Christina McHale personally so that we can write a biography on her. Christina McHale is a pro ranking tennis player whose information is already on the internet so I do not see why I should be blocked from editing if I cite my source and then post it on Wikipedia. Please consider my request and do not have me blocked again if I create Christina McHale because it does cite its sources. Also, please unblock my IP address too instead of just my user name because I cannot edit if only my user name is unblocked. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I can find no evidence that you requested that this article be undeleted. As such, it is inappropriate for you to keep on recreating the article. — Yamla 23:00, 7 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock my block and also request that Christina McHale be recreated. I have cited my sources for this article and I do not feel it is fair if I am blocked for that reason. I do not know why it is inappropriate to keep on recreating the article and if it is will you please tell me why since I have cited my sources. Christina McHale is already on the internet everywhere and all this information can be found elsewhere. If this information can be found elsewhere, I do not feel that I should be blocked from putting it on Wikipedia. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You were warned numerous times not to continue recreating a deleted article. At no point did you take it to Deletion review discussion, but instead continued to recreate. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 19:09, 11 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock my block because I promise never to create Christina McHale without knowing the guidelines for biographies. I also know that anything I put on Christina McHale is not inaccurate. However, I also request it to be undeleted in addition to me being unblocked. I kept on recreating the article because I did not feel that the article was vandalism in any way since all the information on it is factual. Please unblock me and I will not put another article without knowing the guidelines for biographies. Please in addition have the article undeleted.

Decline reason:

You were graciously unblocked and given another opportunity to contribute which you would appear to have wasted. Please stop making multiple redundant unblock requests and please consider contributing when your current block expires. Kuru ^talk 02:49, 13 March 2007 (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.

Sockpuppets

Hi Worthadonkey, I see you created a new user account, User:Worthamule, to get around a block and recreate Christina McHale. I know it's frustrating that you can't create that article you want but not everyone can have an article in Wikipedia. If you want to request an undeletion, the proper channel is WP:DRV. Please be on your best behavior and don't create alternative accounts to get around blocks (see WP:SOCK), if you want get your editing priveleges back. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-15 16:42Z

Block Timer Reset

The use of a sockpuppet (User:Worthamule) to avoid a block is not allowed. Recreating an article at a different title (Christina Marietta McHale) to avoid deletion review is not allowed. I have indefinitely blocked your sockpuppet and have reset the timer on the block on this account. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:Newdelrev|pg=Christina McHale|reason=I do not feel that Christina McHale is an inappropriate article since it cites its source. This information on Christina McHale can be found everywhere else on the internet so I do not see why it is inappropriate to put it on Wikipedia. Please undelete this and if there is any issue relating to why it should not be there, please tell me how to write the article properly and I will follow those instructions instead of recreating the article or creating sock puppets for recreating the article.}} Worthadonkey 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just indef blocked your other sock Worthagoat. Stop creating sockpuppets to avoid your block. IrishGuy ^talk 22:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable and our criteria for biographies. Citing sources is required, but it is not sufficient in itself. Notability, citing, and verifiable sources all go together. In addition, if you believe a deletion decision was reached in error, you need to use WP:DRV and not continually recreate the article. When your block expires, please participate in accordance with our policies & procedures. If you continue to violate them, you risk a permanent ban if the community decides your disruption outweighs your contributions. -- JLaTondre 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also consider that this kind of thing creates a suspicion about anything that may be written or asserted about McHale; it is genuinely bad, I fear, for her reputation. (But see Niven's Laws #16.) --Orange Mike 23:25, 18 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am so so so sorry for all I have done on wikipedia. I know I have been a bad wikipedian and tried to vandalize. My block will not expire until after mid-April and I miss editing wikipedia. I promise that if you unblock me, I will never vandalize again. Also, it was not me who re-created Christina McHale by using a sock puppet. It was my friend who also uses this computer who did that since we both had planned to recreate Christina McHale and vandalize wikipedia. Please understand that I did not use any sock puppet and did not even know such an idea existed until my friend gave me the idea. I am asking you that if you see Christina McHale created again, you do not extend my block for a sock puppet use since this is a shared computer. I have otherwise admitted my guilt for repeat vandalism though I did not create a sock puppet and I feel it is so long until mid-April. Last time I requested, my talk page was protected from editing and I am asking for that not to be done. Though I have made redundant requests in the past, I have truly learned a lesson this time so please shorten my block. I beg you. You will never see vandalism on my part, though I do not know what my friend will do when I am away. However, I will most certainly talk to her about not vandalizing wikipedia since it could ruin Christina McHale's reputation and disrespect her privacy. Thank you.

Decline reason:

We have zero tolerance for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Granting leniency in your case would only undermine our stance against it. -- Netsnipe ► 04:59, 25 March 2007 (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 have been caught continuing to use sockpuppets abusively to avoid your block. Your block has been extended to six months. Any further attempts to avoid your block will result in an indefinite block. You are not permitted to edit the Wikipedia while blocked. --Yamla 05:54, 1 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

NONSENSE! I have had it with all of you constantly making false accusations about me. This is a shared computer so others may vandalize of all types. I do admit to vandalizing earlier but this vandalism was not done on my part. Appeal this to the head administrator or your supervisors because I do not agree with your accusations. If you do not unblock me, then tell me who I may appeal this to or who is the boss of all this so that I can actually appeal to them. I am willing to serve out my own block but I did not create additional sock puppets or meat puppets to vandalize. COMMON SENSE, if I knew that I could be blocked even longer for vandalizing after other warnings and I knew how wikipedia caught other vandals, why would I continue to vandalize? I am willing to serve out my initial block until mid-April and I do admit guilt for that. Otherwise, I am not guilty and I want solid proof before you block me. I am INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and there is a reason why the American justice system works that way so that people not guilty of a crime will not have any chances of a false accusation. I was told by the other user of this computer who put Christina McHale up for deletion review that I have been suspected of this additional nonsense and I am also appealing. My other friend who used this computer is also completely innocent! I want this block to be shortened back to its original time because I did nothing. I want you to either unblock me or tell me how to appeal to your bosses or higher authorities of wikipedia. Please just shorten this block because I have done nothing else!

Decline reason:

You have had numerous unblock requests denied. You have created sockpuppets to continue behavior that got you blocked in the first place. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 19:01, 1 April 2007 (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.

To reviewing admin, please see this edit and this edit from a user, Mohamedrocks (talk · contribs), who is known to operate from the same IP address (see Mohamedrocks IP address) as this editor. WP:SOCK prohibits sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry so it's not really relevent if the editor in this case was "a friend". Additionally, Worthadonkey seems to be confused about the justice system. Wikipedia does not follow American criminal law where "innocent until proven guilty" would apply. It also does not follow American civil law though this would be a closer match. --Yamla 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

For continuing to abuse the unblock template, I have protected your talk page from editing for the duration of your block. Good day. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block timer reset

You were caught using an abusive sockpuppet to continue editing during your block. Your block timer has been reset to six months starting now. Any further abusive sockpuppeteering may result in an indefinite block. --Yamla 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]