User talk:Kacperf

November 2016

I have reported you on ANI. See WP:ANI#Trolling on WAM talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Kacperf/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Kacperf, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You have not yet made a single constructive edit, but you have done a lot of time-wasting things such as moving pages to inappropriate places, including in one case moving the same page repeatedly to numerous inappropriate places. Either you are trolling, you are playing, or you don't know what you are doing: in any of those cases you are being disruptive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia Asian Month

Hello Kacperf,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Wikipedia Asian Month for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you are not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block Ends

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Kacperf (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2017 (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.

@Huon: Look at the edits that led to the account being blocked (posting semi-protected edit requests without actually saying what edits he wants to be made), and compare them with the above "unblock request". It's the exact same thing, and seems like to happen again. Removing talk page access might be a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kacper's

Blocked