User talk:Senor Taichi

07:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Senor Taichi (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Senor Taichi (talk)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Special Delivery (Milly y los Vecinos album)

The article Special Delivery (Milly y los Vecinos album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —teb728 t c 07:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Special Delivery (Milly y los Vecinos album)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Special Delivery (Milly y los Vecinos album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you declare who you are

I recommend that you soon declare the identities of your other accounts. No new user makes their first edit outside of their userspace as a blank RfA article, nor do they immediately jump to commenting on AfDs. As such, this is clearly your second, or more, account, and without an indication of who it is, combined with your questionable behavior so far, people are apt to assume that you're not here to contribute in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Science"

Hi. Because no one has ever said anything about the fact that "She Blinded Me with Science" and "He Blasted Me with Science" have any sort of similarity before, it is against the bylaws of Wikipedia (namely WP:OR and WP:RS) to feature this information in any form. End of discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll discuss this in the article's talk page. It's clear you disagree with the trivia, but I want some input from other editors in regards. Senor Taichi (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting on the article. Your edits to the page have inserted various factual inaccuracies, added information about episodes that have not aired, and remove formatting found on all other pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop adding different episode names without a citation to back it up, as well as changing the protection template added by an admin, and removal of an episode summary. Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you are a new user, please take the time to read up on Wikipedia's policies before you continue making non-constructive edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is in regards now to you continually changing episode 6's title without a source validating your change. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old AFD pages are not moved. If a second nomination occurs, then the page will automatically be made at "2nd nomination". Your moves are breaking everything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded—please stop. Familiarize yourself with the deletion review process and follow it. If you continue your current edits, you will be blocked for disruption. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Francesca Hogi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I never imagined this arguement would escalate into a disruptive block. Can we discuss the dispute here?

Decline reason:

Procedural; not a request to unblock. You can absolutely discuss the dispute here, if you like, but do not use the {{unblock}} template unless and until you're actually requesting to be unblocked. You can post on this page (and this page only) without using the template. Thanks. UltraExactZZ

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.

UltraexactZZ ~ Did 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong reverted your transclusion of the discussion here, which is a questionable revert, but more importantly it doesn't do what you think it does, Senior Taichi. Transcluding the discussion here won't let you participate in it while you're blocked. In some cases we do allow blocked editors to post comments on their talk page and ask others to copy them over to ongoing noticeboard discussions, but I don't think that would apply here. In any event, at this point, that discussion is closed, and there is no consensus to delete or redirect the article. You can't continue to debate that point--the decision of the closing admin is final. Once you are unblocked, you have two avenues forward—WP:DRV if you wish to dispute the close (that is, if you think the closing admin did not accurately determine the consensus, not just that you disagree with it), or start a new AfD (though usually it's not good to start one so soon after the last one finished). If you do want to start a new one, though, you don't move the old one; just start a new one as the second nomination (Twinkle will do this automatically, or the WP:AFD page explained how to do it manually). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]