User talk:Tdinoahfan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TDA Aftermath

I have gone ahead and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TDA Aftermath as what is technically a speedy keep, since nobody favors deleting TDA Aftermath. Hopefully, anything useful from the page has already been salvaged and merged in. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show

Given that it's been through a full AfD you'll need to take this to WP:Deletion review - and you may want to check out civility too. Skier Dude (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of reliable sources is also problematic. If there were sources to back up the release of the movie, I would back creation of a new article and, were it speedy deleted, vote to overturn in a deletion review. However, the last article created had no reliable sources listed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources that the film exists and I'll happily stop suggesting it for speedy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:29, 3 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) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

FYI - please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ed.2C_Edd.2C_n.27_Eddy.27s_Big_Picture_Show. If you can provide sources to show that the program exists, I see no reason to speedy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedied because it's already been deleted at AfD and is thus a WP:CSD#G4 speedy. To restore it, the user will need to go to deletion review. In addition, edit-warring and then messing with the WP:ANI thread is really not a good idea. Black Kite 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see it. Don't remove the section. It will be archived automatically 24 hours after the last comment left in the section. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing false about the warning you removed

Please stop. Your edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review is not helpful or appropriate. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um wow pay attention inteased of just reverting anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdinoahfan (talk • contribs)

I am paying attention. Your edit was not appropriate. Your upset about your article being deleted. That's fine. Calling people stupid is not acceptable, and ignoring that, the edit was completely out of place. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in settling down, I'd be willing to try to help you format your request at deletion review. What you are doing now will not get you any closer to seeing the article restored. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Please also be aware that you may be in breach of the WP:3RR 3 revert rule. Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it says an exception is revrting VANDALISM.. which i am doing

November 2009

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Martin451 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - last warning. You are causing disruption. If you wish to appeal the deletion of the article at deletion review, then go to WP:DRV, READ this section and edit properly. If you disrupt any more pages you will be blocked. Black Kite 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incivility, edit-warring. See WP:COMPETENCE. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 22:35, 3 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

i was rveerting vandalism! i was trying to report it then i got unfairly blocked!

Decline reason:

I think this edit sufficiently demonstrates that you do not grasp the requirement to be civil on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (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.

No, you were re-adding vandalism that multiple other editors had removed. You were also edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BULL! that was NOT vandalism! iw as told to take it there and idk why but it looks like part of it got cropped off and then i guess those editors hate the show so they wanted to sotp me by vandalizing the page and i was trying to stop them!!!

This edit was committing vandalism, not removal of vandalism. At no time, in any of your edits on the DRV page, did you follow the directions for opening a case. As a result, your edits were deemed to be disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WELL SORRY FOR NOT BEING A FUCKING WIKIPEDIA EXPERT HOW ABOUT YOU (Personal attack removed) ACTUALLY HELP ME INSTEAD OF JUST VANDALISING —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdinoahfan (talk • contribs)

If you read the section above, I did actually explain how to raise an issue at deletion review. Instead, you kept on posting abusive comments on the page. I'm not entirely sure what else we are supposed to do in that situation. Black Kite 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DIRECT THE BLCOK TO THE ACTUAL VANDALS!!! AND NOY OU DID NOT! AND ITS PRETTY FUCIMNG HARD TO BE "CIVIL"W HEN I WAS BLOCKED FOR NO REASON!

Well, actually, for most people over 4 years old it's not that hard to be civil if you are at all mature or possess any morsel of self-control. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be helpful as well. All I asked was that you provide a source, any source, to show that the program was notable, and I would have happily stopped tagging for speedy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its a damn movie! how is it not notable?

I would suggest casting an eye over Wikipedia:Notability (films). That should give you some idea of how to prove notability, should you want to recreate the article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I requested a reliable source to verify the movie. Notability and verifiability are twin pillars, interrelated but not the same. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT WAS RELEASED SIX MONTHS AGO! IF THAT ISNT VERIFIED IN YOUR EYES THEN YOU MUST BE ON DRUGS~!

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).

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

Request reason:

i have no reason to be blocked. nobody was explaining to me what i was doign wrong and instead were harassing me and claiming i was vandalizing .nobodya ttempted to provide help.

Decline reason:

Thank you for applying for a volunteer position writing Wikipedia, a major international encyclopedia that is used as a source of information by millions of people. Unfortunately, a review of your contributions thus far indicates that you do not currently possess the knowledge of encyclopedia writing that would be useful for a volunteer writer, and that you are not able to work politely with other users. Unfortunately, we will have to decline your offer to write the encyclopedia at this time. If, after a few more years of education, you develop stronger skills in encyclopedia writing and cooperative work, please feel free to apply again. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (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.