From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How come I still can't edit.Safwwefe 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because I forgot to unblock you...:) John Reaves (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Should be good now. John Reaves (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes,it is.Safwwefe 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Toronto Raptors, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chensiyuan 01:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
List of sexy people
A tag has been placed on List of sexy people, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk [page if you have any questions about this. Resolute 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
All articles are short when they are first written and my article provides content and should definetly not be deleted. People will make it longer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safwwefe (talk • contribs).
- Even so, an article without context has no value to the reader, and does a disservice to the project. If a stub cannot explain what it is, then it should not be around. Also, in the case of this article, it is inherently POV and unmaintainable, which gave it virtually no shot of surviving any kind of deletion request. Resolute 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --TeaDrinker 20:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, you will be blocked from editing. KP Botany 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Vandalism, you will be blocked from editing. ElinorD (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please unblock me. I am sorry for the vandalism and personal attacks I have made. It is my fault. I promise I won't do it again. But my account is not only used for vandalism. Check my contributes. Most of them are good edits. I will make more edits like them if I'm unblocked. So can I be unblocked. I was just angry at someone at work and got a little carried away.Safwwefe 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblock me please. I will do my job as a editor as when I first joined wikipedia. I can only make good contibutes to wikipedia if I am unblocked. So, please unblock meSafwwefe 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You may contest this block by following the format of {{unblock|your reason here}}. Dancter 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "I am usually a good editor. Look at my contibution list. Most of them are good edits. I was just angry that day and got carried away. If I'm unblocked I will make more good edits as I did before."
Decline reason: "Sorry, but garbage such as this is not justifiable. Even you are angry, and even if you have previous (though very few... you have 52 and I can immediately tell that half are unconstructive; hard to assume good faith here) positive contributions, WP:NPA is a policy and you violated it. Every action has potential consequences, and in the case of your vandalism/personal attacks spree, the indefinite block is one such consequence. Request denied. --Kinu t/c 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
- Do not remove the above unblock request and replace it with another, just because you disagree with the result. It is disruptive. The template says: This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request. Feel free to make your case in text below, as the unblock request remains visible. --Kinu t/c 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you can make a second unblock request below... I know the template advises against it, but to be fair to you, it may deserve a second pair of eyes. --Kinu t/c 02:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "Some of my contributions were unconstructive because it was the either May 5 or 6. Those were my bad days at work. But look at the other ones. Maybe only Toronto Raptors and it was a test by a new users and accourding to your policy, it is not vandalism. I made good edits to Lamar, point guard, Tracy Mcgrady and much more. Can't you just look at those and give me asecond chance and I will only make positive edits. I admitt they vandalisms and harrassments I have done and it is wrong. But, I promise not to do any unconstitutional edits again."
Decline reason: "OK. I looked at earlier edits. You only made eleven edits before May 5th. This doesn't impress me. Neither do edits like this when you weren't logged in. Denied. — IrishGuy talk 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
Can any administrator review my request please.Safwwefe 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Please review my request administrators.Safwwefe 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Review my request anyone and I'm sorry for the disruptions I've made and I won't do it again.Safwwefe 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ANY ADMINISTRATORS? Kinu? Dancter? ANY ONE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safwwefe (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in no position to perform an unblock, and perhaps I'm out of line to suggest this, but perhaps it would help your case if you provide some good examples of constructive edits that you are planning, which you can do by proposing the changes here. No promises, though. Dancter 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "I said it wrong my only bad day was May 6, All the edits on May 5 were good edits. You didn't finish looking at my contributions, you are suppose to click next 50 and most of the edits on May 6 were still good edits, It's only the afternoon I made some bad edits. The edit to Toronto Raptors was a test by new users and accourding to Wikipedia:Vandalism it is not vandaism. The edit of the personal attack is not done by me and I can swear to god because I wasn't even logged in, it must of been someone else. Look at my contributions carefully and make the decision again. I will not make any unconstructive edits after I am unblocked. I am planning to create a new article called Otto Braun(Li De) and he is advisor of the Communist Party of China during the long march to fight against the KMT. But his position was succeded by Mao Ze Dong after the Zunyi Conference. But I couldn't write about him if I'm blocked. I am also willing to make contributions to Zunyi Conference and long march about adding informations relating to him in them. So, Can I be unblocked please, I'm already cooled down and planning to make good edits to Wikipedia and help to make it a reliable source and benifit the readers.Safwwefe 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Compose your article about Otto Braun (Li De) below, and once you are satisfied with it, issue another unblock request. An administrator may decide to unblock you if the article is any good. See WP:1SP and WP:MOSBIO for how to write a good biography. — Sandstein 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
Otto Braun (Li De)
Otto Braun was a German advisor to Communist Party of China sent by the International Communist Party. In 1933, He came to China to become a advisor of the CPC. He named himself a Chinese name, Li De. CPC was a long time competitor to KMT. They were a revolution party. In 1934, the CPC started the Long March because the KMT was attacking. Later that year, He, Zhou En Lai and Bo Gu became the leader and all the decisions were made by them even though Mao Ze Dong,Peng De Huai and many other people were in opposition to them. But because of his inexperienced advising, Many people died and the First Font Army's people has fall from 86000 to about 25000. The CPC had a important meeting, Zunyi Conference. In the meeting, both Bo Gu and him has lost their positions. Li De's position was given to Mao Ze Dong. However, he completed the Long March along with everyone else.
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "How do you think about my article, administrators? Safwwefe 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Please go away. Do not ask to be unblocked again. E-mail your admin instead. // Pilotguy radar contact 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
 Y |
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Second chance, please be aware that you will be immediately reblocked if any of your previous behavior perists.
Request handled by: John Reaves (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
|
This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Safwwefeasd". The reason given for Safwwefeasd's block is: "Death threat". But I did't do anything wrong this time, Look at my contributins. It is not fair that I should be blocked just because of someone else.
How mysterious that this account gets caught in the autoblock. – Steel 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "this time I didn't do any thing, Look at my contributions after I was unblocked. I do not know who is Safwwefe and please leave me alone and unblock me so I could make good edits. I am so innocent.Safwwefe 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Oh please. Someone with almost exactly the same name and operating from the exact same IP address, and you expect us to believe this is a coincidence? No, you are just wasting our time. Try again in six months or a year. — Yamla 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "I am very sorry to the disruptions I made to Wikipedia. I promise not to vandalise Wikipedia, harass users or create more socks again. I have read all the policies and guidlines carefully. If I ever do any one of those disruptive actions even once please block me and protect this page immediately. But I promise that will not happen, I am really willing to contribute to Wikipedia again positively. I will be making useful contributions to articles especially basketball articles because I am a big NBA fan. I will be a very valuable and productive editor to Wikipedia. But if you admins don't unblock me, you will loose yourself a valuable contributor. Please block me immediately if I do any disruptive editing. Safwwefe 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Yeah, we've heard that from you before. This page is now protected for three months due to unblock abuse. — Yamla 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
