User talk:Polysciwantacracker

Welcome!

Hello Polysciwantacracker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --HappyCamper 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for welcoming new Wikipedians! Try using {{subst:welcome}} --~~~~ instead - this is easier on the servers, and also leaves your signature for others to contact you. See you around! --HappyCamper 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome :D --HappyCamper 02:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I note that you're new here, and almost all of your many, many edits appear to be welcome messages. The only two exceptions are your creation of two articles (Islamunism and Secularism nazi) which appear to be neologisms of your own creation. I think you might want to consider lurking a while longer and making edits to existing articles before creating new articles. As it is, your current behaviour leads one to suspect that you are attempting to vandalize Wikipedia and covering your tracks by flooding your edit history with a large number of welcome messages. —Psychonaut 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with welcoming people--Polysciwantacracker 03:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but creating vanity articles and posting false and inappropriate comments to user pages is. —Psychonaut 03:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate that you're doing this, you're probably using a bot. Welcome information is automatically added, I think you're trying to boost your edit count. Nonforma 03:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

User:Sonyacross is not an inappropriate username, first of all, and second of all you have no right to put Template:Usernameblock on his talk page since he is not blocked (and you cannot block him either). I agree with Psychonaut that it seems you are welcoming many users, which is a good thing, but you are doing it to disguise other, more malicious edits. In any case, if you continue vandalizing Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. – ugen64 03:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the Template:usernameblock template as you did on User talk:Spm 1 and User talk:Sonyacross. Since you are not an administrator, you don't have the ability to block users. Besides, the users in question had done nothing wrong. —Psychonaut 03:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bot

If you are running a bot, please stop immediately. You must get permission at Wikipedia:Bots before running any kind of bot. – ugen64 03:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm running on, is my geniune urge to make new users feel welcomed--Polysciwantacracker 03:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi there...it is probably a better idea to request adminship after a longer period of editing on Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to observer a little bit how the WP:RFA process works on Wikipedia, as sometimes a lot of things happen there. --HappyCamper 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do NOT impersonate other users as you have done on your RFA.~~ I strongly urge you to withdraw your RFA as you have very little chance of becoming an admin. Finally, you are misleading editors by saying that you created this RFA because of some comment on your talk page (am I missing something? I don't see any such comment here). – ugen64 03:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's a conclusion made by implication from above: "...Since you are not an administrator, you don't have the ability to block users..." --HappyCamper 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I have just listed you on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for running a bot without authorization, vandalizing user pages, and creating vanity articles. —Psychonaut 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bot, do I need persmission to click faster than you?--Polysciwantacracker 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

Please see What Wikipedia is not. Your two articles do not seem to fit within encyclopedic contributions. Jkelly 03:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians

Can we give this user a little bit of WP:AGF? Yes, those two articles are somewhat questionable, but perhaps he/she is a genuine new user. --HappyCamper 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users generally don't know their way around Wikipedia well enough to immediately start doing mass welcomes and nominating themselves for adminship. He/she is most likely a vandal and/or troll. In any case, I think we've been very polite in our requests and attempts to educate, but it's not seeming to have any effect. —Psychonaut 03:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention time

It appears that virtually everyone of those you are tagging with the welcome template have either none or only one edit. I'm going to ask you to stop this nonsense at once. It almost definitely appears that you are running a bot without approval. Please stop editing at once until this issue is resolved or you may risk being blocked for disruption.--MONGO 03:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use bots--Polysciwantacracker 03:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi Polysciwantacracker - a number of Wikipedians have voiced their genuine concerns regarding your edit behaviour on Wikipedia. I have decided to take the unusual step of blocking your account for 15 minutes to give you a chance to explain more thoroughly your intentions on Wikipedia. Your edit behaviour is particularly unusual, and your fluency with tagging and administrative procedures here warrants an adequate clarification on your part. The creation of two articles with intensifying content has also been noted. Once the block expires, you are free to edit constructively here, but if the concerns raised on your page are repeated, I will be inclined to permanently block this username. Thank you for your understanding. --HappyCamper 03:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have lengthened the block to an indefinite block as you are obviously a troll and your unauthorized botting and your RFA actions prove it along with the rest of your contribs. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use bots, also you shouldn't call people a troll that's not very nice of you--Polysciwantacracker 03:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say, but after having a chance to reread the comments above, I'm inclined to agree with the decision to block here as well. Please do not blank this page or modify its contents. Thank you for your understanding. --HappyCamper 04:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it's conclusive that there's a bot running here, the edits weren't that fast and there was a typo in one of them here. I think an indefinite block might be a little hasty here. Besides the goofy RFA I don't see much in the contribs to take such a drastic action. Rx StrangeLove 04:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinite" doesn't mean "forever". I think it's reasonable to implement a block until User:Polysciwantacracker explains his behaviour and his intentions to the satisfaction of the community, as repeatedly requested here. —Psychonaut 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was, I was just saying that I'm not sure a bot was involved and that that type of block might have been too much. Rx StrangeLove 05:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry that was very likely brought on due to my indefinite block should also be dealt with especially since as soon as the account was created it was welcoming people with minor edits, thus my continued feeling that this may be a bot though if the user is willing to talk and explain his/her self then I'd be more than willing to talk and to possibly unblock. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for awhile just in case. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awesome?

Why am I not allowed to maske this edit?--Polysciwantacracker 04:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8I don't use bots, why do people say I do?--Polysciwantacracker 04:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list and, possibly, recategorise certain blocked users. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 11:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)