User talk:Radiosmasher

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Pinoybandwagon (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome

Hello Radiosmasher, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Daryl (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I have reverted your post at WP:RFA because it didn't exist. To nominate yourself, simply go to WP:RFA/N and follow the instructions there. Cheers! BoL (Talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

threaths of blocking

Please don't make blocking threats like you did here [1]. if you don't like the adminstrative actions taken by admins on the pages that you create or edit, there are other more constructive ways to complain. Also, notice that in wikipedia you don't own the articles you edit --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YEAH RIGHT! I DO NOT REALLY OWN THE ARTICLES I EDIT. AND THAT IS TRUE. Radiosmasher (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of 95.1 Kiss FM

A tag has been placed on 95.1 Kiss FM, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This article was moved to DWKI to comply with radio station naming conventions, but one user recreated the old one here, so now we hace two identical articles.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{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, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. |nn-warn-reason|95.1 Kiss FM|This article was moved to DWKI to comply with radio station naming conventions, but one user recreated the old one here, so now we hace two identical articles.}}|95.1 Kiss FM|header=1}} Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have removed a duplicated article that you re-created. I think I have to excuse myself, I used the radio station naming conventions as reason, but then I saw Wikipedia:Name#Philippines, so you maybe you are right on using that name. However, please read this before trying to recreate the article using the same method. Please notice that the GFDL requires to keep a list of contributors to the article. If you copy/paste the whole content of the page from one article to other, then all the history about who wrote which text gets lots. You need to move the article because this way the editing history of the article is moved together with the page. If you want to move the article back from DWKI to 95.1_Kiss_FM, then you need to have 95.1_Kiss_FM deleted by an admin, and then you need to move the DWKI article to that location.

To delete 95.1_Kiss_FM first ask an admin to delete it by putting this template Template:Db-histmerge/new on the page and an admin will look at it and delete it. Then go to DWKI and use the "move" tab on the upper part of the page to move the page to 95.1_Kiss_FM. Then you can make a redirect on DWKI if you want. Have a nice day --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:WP:RFPP

Consider this your only warning. Do not change comments made by users, especially administrative decisions. This, along with continually asking for unprotection of the same articles is considered disruption, and if you continue I will block you. Please cease these types of edits. Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALL RIGHT!! Radiosmasher (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didnt make myself 100% clear. Continually requesting protection for the same article after it has been declined is considered disruption. Do not make another request at WP:RFPP for an article that has already been declined, or I will be forced to block you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK ME. Radiosmasher (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have decided to request unprotection of Template:Metro Manila Radio once again. You have been warned enough times about this and how it is disruptive, consider this your final warning. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pinoybandwagon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Enric Naval (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET OF User:Pinoybandwagon!!!! And what I said is REALLY TRUE!!!! Radiosmasher (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i make a bad move

I moved PoweRadio 104.7 to PowerRadio 104.7 (notice the extra "r") thinking that it was a misspelling, but it appears that it was the correct name. My mistake, I already reverted it back, and the redirect is back at its original place. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Radiosmasher (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio station naming

Just a helpful suggestion. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Naming#Broadcasting - articles about radio stations that have call signs should use the call sign as the article title. I think your series of articles about radio stations in the Philippines need to be renamed to comply with that convention. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop ignoring radio naming conventions

Radiosmasher, stop moving radio station articles to name that don't fit Wikipedia's radio station naming conventions, which you know perfectly because you edited them 2 minutes after creating this account. You have even moved articles back to the place you created them at after them being moved to comply with naming conventions. Desist *inmediately* of this behaviour. This is your *last* warning --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just clearing. I don't oppose that you create radio stations articles, but please use names following naming conventions and *don't* undo the actions of editors that move them to the proper naming. You are just making other editors waste their time reverting your moves. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT making editors waste their time reverting my moves! Radiosmasher (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't argue that point with me. I have seen enough pages being moved back to its original name and/or fully protected to prevent moving of the page. This point is objetively *very* clear, and the articles will have to be moved eventually to its correct name, *and* the links on the templates will have to be fixed someday so that they no longer have a link target completely different from the link text (I find it ironic that the text on the links on those templates actually complies with the naming conventions).

I have already stated that I have no problems with you creating more radio articles under names complying with wikipedia naming conventions for radio stations. If you think the naming conventions are wrong and should be different, then go to the naming conventions policy and raise the issue on the talk page for other editors to comment on it. Don't change the policy again with no consensus, btw. Who knows, thye might agree on a different convention for Philipine radio stations. I've seen weirder stuff happen --Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lies about non-involvement

Checkuser has confirmed your relationship to those accounts and more accounts on the sockpuppetry case. It appears that you were either only one person or several persons all editing from the same location. That last thing is *also* a violation of WP:SOCK due to the way in which you supported each other to run around wikipedia policy. If you decide to create another account and come back, then please make sure that this time you respect wikipedia policies --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to be unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

I HAVE LEARNED A BIG LESSON ABOUT BEING CREATED UNDER A USERNAME.

Decline reason:

Please stick to your main account. Thanks. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:03, 5 April 2008 (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.

Radiosmasher (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen!

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).

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

Request reason:

THIS IS NOT AN UNBLOCK REQUEST.
LOOK AT THE MESSAGE UNDER:
To all Wikipedia non-administrators and administrators.

Decline reason:

Please don't use the unblock template if you are not requesting unblock. The message simply says that you have retired, in which case, an unblock will not be needed. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 April 2008 (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 all wikipedia non-administrators and administrators

RETIRED

Sorry. I am no longer an active user in Wikipedia. I will take a vacation and I have to move along now. GOODBYE.

Radiosmasher (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of DWBE

The article DWBE has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Part of a series of articles on radio stations in the Philippines tagged as possible hoaxes by Bluemask (talk · contribs). Please add reliable source references to establish the existence of this station.