User talk:Brianwazere

Welcome!

Hello, Brianwazere, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders

Hi, thanks for your edits to EastEnders articles, but please can you note that even if a character has died or left the show in some other way, they never stop being a fictional character from the show, so the lead section should always read "is a fictional character...", thanks! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle's article says "Danielle Jones (née Amy Mitchell) is a fictional character from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played by Lauren Crace." Some articles still say "was" because nobody's got around to changing it yet. There's a lot of EastEnders character articles and it's taking time to fix them all. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest Wikipedia:Tutorial. Also have a look at the links in the welcome message I've just placed a the top of this page. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered if you can do me a favour, if you're going to take on the task of changing "was" to "is" for all EastEnders character pages. Could you also change "in" to "from", as in "Danielle Jones is a fictional character from the...". That would be very helpful. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel obliged to change all the pages though. There's hundreds of them and it's a huge task. People are always changing it back because they don't understand Wikipedia policies. WP:FICT is worth reading. My name? AnemoneProjectors will do. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to chat, sorry. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is an encyclopaedia, not a chat room or a forum. But if you want to know what sort of pages I edit or more about me, have a look at my user page. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd say it's probably not worth your time changing "was" to "is" for all the past characters as there's lots of other changes that need to be made to all the articles, and more experienced editors will need to do these, so they can change the tense in the opening line at the same time. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you want to add information about the characters, but it's totally not worth just making these minor changes and nothing else. Like I said, let the more experienced editors do them when they make the other changes that are needed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd prefer it if you didn't do this and concentrated on making other changes that you want to. I know you want to help, but really you're creating more work because I'm having to follow all your edits and make further changes. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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! Also, can you please leave your comments in the correct section on my talk page and not at the bottom with someone else's comments. Thanks AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please please PLEASE can you change "in" to "from" as well, and change "He was played by" to just "played by", making it all one sentence, such as "John Smith is a fictional character from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played by James Jones." Then I don't have to make more changes after your edits. Please! You're making more work for me! If you want to be a good part of the team, please do that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. I'm using an Automatic editor to make the changes as well, which is a lot quicker :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, just keep editing. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Kelly

Hi, can you let me know how you know Theo is returning? Has something been said? Is there an episode guide or something with his name on it? Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Amira Shah, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Branning

Hi, can you please leave the Stacey Branning page as reading Branning and not Slater in the meantime please? Just because the character is now divorced does not mean that she will choose to use Slater as her surname instead of Branning. We need to be absolutely clear about this before we change it on Wikipedia to keep the encyclopedia as accurate as possible. Thank you. --5 albert square (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stacey Slater. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:AnemoneProjectors. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. – Zntrip 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your all dirthy fuckers!!brian moore (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Billy and Jay

Billy went to the hospital to thank Heather for letting them stay with her and Shirley. What makes you think they're living with Archie? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya am if you go on a few days on Digital Spy Archie offers Billy a spair room in his house and he accepts after Peggy insults him,he also gives the other spair room to Sambrian moore (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you shouldn't be changing information in the articles until it's happened on-screen. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry:) wont do it again brian moore (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said you wouldn't do it again but you did it yesterday with Bradley Branning. Also, it hasn't been shown on screen where the Mitchells went, so that information shouldn't really be there, but I'll let you off on that one because they've left the Vic. But please try not to add information that hasn't been shown on screen, thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and have a happy Christmas :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Raintheone. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. W93 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made a threat to another editor, I wasn't just not going to get involved. W93 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it keeps on I'll just request a block. As for editing I'm sure with a of further reading on help pages you will be able to contribute constructively one day, I found it really easy myself. As for Natasha Blakeman's article I'm sure you can help to add more sources. I was wondering though, what did you have in mind if I don't watch my mouth, so far I don't remember verbally adressing you.Raintheone (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something constructive then. You like the aussie soaps, do you edit the articles? I can help you with things if you like. Swearing and thing's, not good really. Calm down and stuff because it's pointless arguing over a website don't you agree?Raintheone (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh. I just thought because it says you watch home and away and neighbours on your userpage you made. My mis-understanding. Happy editing though. =) Raintheone (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (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 may 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) 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot emergency shutdown

Can you explain what occurred that caused you to invoke the bot's emergency shutdown? @harej 01:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do that again and I'm blocking you for a month. @harej 23:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full-date unlinking bot shutdown

I see that you have the emergency shutdown again for the User:Full-date unlinking bot. Can you please explain the reasons for your actions? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no ur grand actually!! brian moore (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your intent. Did you have a valid reason for shutting down the bot? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:harej, you will be blocked from editing. warrior 4321 00:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lauren Branning. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. There is a discussion about the recent edits at Talk: Lauren Branning. Please join in the discussion there. Thank you for your co-operation. 5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Lauren Branning. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of until 2009-12-15T23:59:00Z for personal attacks while blocked. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. ~~If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.~~ Talk page privileges revoked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brianwazere. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Step relations - Jane Beale

Hello Brianwazere. Just to inform you that, in keeping with recent discussions at the EastEnders Wiki Project talk page it has been decided to include step relation fields in character info boxes: specifically "stepmother"; "stepfather"; "stepson"; "stepdaughter". It was felt that often step relations have closer interactions with characters than blood relations (or adopted relations), and therefore warranted inclusion. In the case of Jane Beale, it was obviously felt that her character's association with the children of her husband warranted some kind of recognition in the character info box as it is a major part of her characterisation. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding regarding this issue. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, however, that stepfamily should only be included where they are significant. For example, Ricky should not be listed as a stepson of Peggy. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you just removed Pat's stepchildren, saying "Step children/step parents should only be added if they are currently there step-relations because Pat is no longer Janine's step-mother". That's not true, we said we would add it with years just like we do with spouses, to show that person is no longer a step relation. But I still feel there should be some degree of "upbringing" involved. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another change you should know about.

You recently removed three sections from List of EastEnders characters (2009), but you should know that following a discussion on WikiProject EastEnders, we agreed to change the lists of minor characters by year, to lists of all characters, and any character with their own article would have a section and a link to the main article. So please don't remove any sections from these articles, thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry i wasn't around when ye discussed this well its a good idea anyway:) Brianwazere 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think it's a good idea. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders#Minor characters (revisited) which is a follow-on from an earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders#EastEnders major/minor characters. Hope that helps. If you put the EastEnders project page on your watchlist, you should be able to keep up with discussions and any new changes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks thats great, oh as you mave have noticed i got the last appearance for DC Cunningham http://www.imdb.com/ is great for finding out that sort of thing:)

Great stuff! I didn't think to look on IMDb for her but I did find out from there that DC Hughes from today's episode appeared before. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters from Coronation Street

On the List of characters from Coronation Street page, there seems to be an issue with you deciding to state Natasha Blakeman as a recurring character, Jack Duckworth too. They are main characters. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Jack is now only a recurring character as he actor is working a alot less in corrie dues to illness Brianwazere 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading your comment on the List of characters from Coronation Street talk page here, I would like to draw your attention to WP:NPA - Wikipedia is not a place to attack contributors, especially when they have done nothing wrong - no one is 'producing crap'. Furthermore, there is no policy to state that editors have to be frequent contributors to articles for their opinion to count - being a 'dedicated' contributor does not make you superior to others. I politely ask you to consider your manor of speech the next time you wish to put your point across. Kind regards, Schumi555 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to post this here instead. In response to you, I think if you look on my user page you will see the contribuations I've made to Coronation Street articles. I haven't made big edits to them for a few months but last year I expanded and poured references in and added notability to many of the articles. I've also asked you in the past if you needed my assistance on anything to do with Soap opera articles, you turned it down, that offer is still there. Plus the reason why I haven't big edits to Coronation Street articles latley is that Hollyoaks and Neighbours articles were in dire straights and I've been shaping those ones up.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Schumi555 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. unfair blocking

I believe that "And you take your 'Kind Regards' and shove them where the sun dont shine!! Ok sunshine!" is not constructive in any way, and therefore I warned you that your manor of speech has no place on Wikipedia. Please try to assume good faith and be civil when talking to other users. Regards, Schumi555 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC Glynn

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to DC Glynn, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. The article is currently marked for speedy deletion - if you blank it, the speedy deletion alert will be lost, so best just leave it for admin attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Hi, I've linked to the relevant guideline several times now, but in case you haven't looked at WP:SPOILER, it states that: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." and "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." It's fine to remove unsourced speculation, but when future information is sourced, you shouldn't be removing it just because you don't like it. Thanks. Frickative 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well when that plot happens it will have to edited into the past or present tense weather you like it or not!! Brianwazere 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bearing that has on this discussion? I just spent over an hour re-writing the entire plot section in the present tense as required by the guidelines on writing about fiction, so yes, I am aware of that. I know we haven't interacted often, but you've come across as rather disgruntled during recent interactions. Have I done something to irritate you? Apologies if so, it certainly hasn't been my intention! Frickative 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No look I havn't got a problem with sorry i made you think otherwise,lets just forget about this and once again I'm the one thats sorry-lets try and get on Brianwazere 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh ya and its great that you are cleaning up the corrie articles i was beginning to think they were almost deserted,Corrie doesnt seem to have much dedicated editors besides me and you,but anyway im sure we can manage,alot of articles need clean-up and i would be happy to help with anything:D Brianwazere 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, that's good to hear! :) I know I don't contribute to the Coronation Street WikiProject anywhere near as much as I used to, but I've been doing a fair bit of work lately trying to add the Project template to all the Corrie articles and assess what level they're at - the majority are Start-class, but there are some good C-class articles that could possibly become Good Articles in the future with a bit of work :D Frickative 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes am do you think it would be a good idea to creat an article for George Wilson and Mary Taylor only they are fairly established and regular characters,let me know what you think:) Brianwazere 00:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I've had a look for sources on them, but I've not come up with much for George, just a couple that are mostly talking about plot details: [1] [2]. There are more on Mary: some talking about plotlines [3] [4] [5], her axing [6] [7] and return [8] [9], and a few more bits here [10]. That one could be doable - the best thing would probably to build up the section about her in the list article, and if there seems to be enough information to warrant a separate article, start it off then :) Frickative 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emmerdale characters

Hello. I see you have brought the issue of Alan Turner's absence up once more. I have to say that I am trying to assume good faith here but yet again you are completely disregarding the discussion we had and just a day before his return you insist on reverting the edits. For my own sake, I'm just going to leave it since no other editor has contributed to the discussion, but for future reference the status of departure whether 'official' or otherwise is, without a source, nothing more than personal opinion. Contributors are completely justified in referring to sourced facts. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wel lwhat you need to understand is it you cant do what you want when you want!,you seem to think that Richard Thorp left the cast when he clearly took sick leave as mentioned in digital spy source,i am not just changing this because its my opinion,im changing it because its fact because what you are doing is wrong!,therefore putting you in the wrong and me in the right!,so Alan should be always included in the present cast and his duration as 1982- because The Actor never left! Please dont change it Thank You Brianwazere 17:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Residences in Weatherfield

In the following edits you made [11], [12], [13] and [14] you removed the flat descriptions I originally added in this edit. Is there a reason why you removed them as they made it easier to work out which flat was which. Also in this edit you rearranged the house in numerical order when I'd arranged them in street number order corresponding with there position in the street. Could you please let me know why you did the things I've mentioned above as I am confused why you changed/removed those things as there isn't sufficient edit summaries given for these edits. Thanks Paul 2387 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you get back to me ASAP on my talk page. Thanks Paul 2387 13:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders occupations

Please remember that it's only the most important, most defining jobs that should be included in infoboxes, not every single one. Thanks. Anemone Projectors 22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I wouldn't remove years where years are given because some people have said they'd like them included. There's not been any real discussion on this yet so it's probably best to leave it for now until there is. Anemone Projectors 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Johnson

Hi

This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion being held at Talk: Denise Johnson regarding recent infobox edits that you may be interested in. Please join in the discussion there --5 albert square (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmerdale edits-July 2010

Hi, whilst everyone is welcome to make a contribution on Wikipedia, please be aware that you should always provide a reason for your edits in the article's edit summary. You did not do this for the recent edits you made to List of Emmerdale characters, therefore I have reverted the article to before you edited it, as there appears to be no good reason for changing it and seems to be an unconstructive edit. Nocrowx (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tony Pritchard

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your name has been brought up in Wikipedia:AN/I over your recent activity. If you would like to comment just go there. Thanks! 161.165.196.84 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I see any more egregious BLP violations like this attack article you created, you will be blocked for a very long time. --Chris (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pritchard is a real person, see IMDb and "what links here". Those links now redirect to an unrelated person. Anemone Projectors 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and because he is a real person, potentially damaging statements about him need to be backed up by a reliable source. --Chris (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, but I'm just saying. Anemone Projectors 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what the hell you are talking¬!!!!!!!!. u are out of order, dont you dare threaten me like dat you fuck-face!!!!!!!!, i had nothing to do wit this article Brianwazere 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you replying to the above or to the below? I'll remind you not to make personal attacks on other users. Anemone Projectors 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to July so you might not remember, but you started an article that said nothing but "is a gay actor". That's why it was deleted and you were warned for creating attack pages. Anemone Projectors 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Brian Cowen, you may be blocked from editing. Garda40 (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure what this is about, it relates to this edit. Anemone Projectors 02:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i know dat one but what i dont understand is why you r getting involved this is none of ur business anytime i do anything u get involved u probably dont even know anything about brian cowen Brianwazere 12:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop blanking AnemoneProjectors's user pages, or at least explain why you are doing so. --Chris (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something to upset you, Brian? –Anemone Projectors– 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice for all my followers

CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!, I would just like to let all you (Personal attack removed) know that although i am blocked a from editing as Brianwazere i feel ye should all know that i am now editing from a different account which cannot be traced back to me as i am set up on another PC so i can continue to contribute my fine work to Wikipedia and none of ye losers can stop me, Thanks you for attention and have a nice day! Brianwazere 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianwazere for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frickative 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianwazere for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frickative 16:49, 18 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi my name is Brian Moore and i am user:Brianwazere on Wikipedia and i would like to request an unblocking of my account

I am so very sorry for the trouble I caused in the past and I willing to accept my faults and I apologize to any users i may have offended.

I was blocked because i was making invalid edits which I kept doing until I was blocked, however i did not mean any harm by these edits as i thought the content was useful to the articles

I also apologize for talking cruelly to some of the other users including 5 Albert Square and anemoneprojectors and i assure that it will not happen again

as i said i am willing and able to apologize to any who offended and i promise to only add contributes that are useful to the articles i would appreciate if ye would consider giving me another oppuritinity to edit on Wikipedia again:)

Please Please consider accepting this appeal as my behavior was unacceptable but i assure you right now it will change for the better:)

I fell hat this block is no longer necessarily as i changed and i will be a better user on the site and i also admit to wrongly using one or more accounts during block which i also apologize for

Yours gratefully Brianwazere 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your history I don't think it would be in Wikipedia's best interests to unblock you at this time. However, that doesn't invalidate what James stated below, and if you wish to take him up on his offer, feel free to do so. -- Atama頭 00:22, 10 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.

I have looked at your truly appalling history. I would be prepared to bet heavily that most administrators would not, under the circumstances, be prepared to give a moment's consideration to your unblock request. However, I have a history of giving second chances to editors in situations like this, and I find that I am usually right to do so. People do change. I am prepared to consider it under the following conditions:

You stay away from editing Wikipedia until four months from the last time you edited in violation of your block. The last such edit that I know of was on 9 May 2011, so you would have to wait until 9 September 2011. "Stay away from editing Wikipedia" means no use of other accounts, no editing without logging in, and no editing with this account except constructive edits relating to your unblock request. That may seem a long time to wait, but considering the long catalogue of obstructive editing of various sorts you went in for I think four months is quite moderate, and a quarter of the time has already gone.
You declare any other accounts you have used apart from Brianwazere and Brianboi16, which are already known, and tell us if you have done any other anonymous editing you have done other than that from IP addresses 86.43.179.248 and 86.46.246.35.
You stick by the undertaking you have given in your unblock request to refrain from any further disruption.
You understand that failure to abide by these terms may lead to an immediate indefinite block without further warning, and that in that situation it is unlikely that you would be unblocked again.

This is an offer I am making to you. I cannot guarantee that other administrators may not come along and express disagreement, and I will not be willing to act against a clear consensus. I cannot guarantee even that I will still be around in three months to unblock you. However, I offer it as a good faith expression of my intention, rather than as a solid promise. Also, even if I am not around, another admin may be willing to honour the agreement on my behalf, as it were. If you are willing to accept this offer please indicate the fact. You are not obliged to accept it, but my guess is that no administrator is likely to be more generous in the light of your history, so it is probably the best chance you will get. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply for JamesBWatson

Ok your offer sounds fair i am willing to wait another 4 months to appeal again:), No I promise you right now that those 4 accounts are the only ones I have used those 2 accounts and those 2 IP addresses nothing else!, Yes and as i said before i will refrain from any further disruption as I am truly sorry for all the disruption i have cause the past it will never ever happen again I assure you!, I understand totally what you are saying and if somewhere down the line you do decide to give me another chance i will not let myself down and i will stick to all the rules you have just stated, thank you for helping with my appeal (talk) and giving me some advice on helping me improve my work here on Wikipedia:) Brianwazere 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of terms of unblock offer

Despite what you said above, you have continued to edit anonymously, from several IP addresses which you have not declared. Consequently the offer made above is withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianwazere‎ for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frickative 20:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianwazere for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianwazere for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 5 albert square (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianwazere for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 5 albert square (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #80430

is closed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]