User talk:UnTrooper

My Page

Writing here leaves you liable for abuse. You are warned. (This is MY talk page, if you do not want me to edit your comments that I don't like, Do not post here.)

Speedy deletion of User:UnTrooper

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as User:UnTrooper, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:UnTrooper|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a user page, what exactly am I vandalising? - Vandalism is contested. --UnTrooper (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP:CSD:Criteria for Speedy Deletion #3, vandalism includes blatant and obvious misinformation. This is misinformation. This is not Jimbo Wales' userpage. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming it is, what with it saying UnTroopers userpage at the top of it, its supposed to be funny, and it says I can put whatever I want on my userpage. Do you really believe anyone will actually think I'm Jimbo? See G2 of criteria for speedy deletion, it does not meet speedy deletion criteria and so I am removing the flag.

it is vandalism to remove speedy delete tags from pages you have created yourself. let an administrator decide whether it meets the criteria. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a link to here on it, I'll put the tags back up but they're a waste of space when it does not meet criteria and will not be deleted.

I've delete it per G10 as it serves no purpose but to disparage someone. Please direct your energies to something productive.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this as G10 does not cover userpages and there was nothing offensive, yes it was a minor joke but I did not write anything outright offensive towards Jimbo.
- G10 does cover userpages in general and this one in particular.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still not abusive regardless of what you say.--UnTrooper (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I'm just lazy when its obviously me, will add it to the end of all. --UnTrooper (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Content from Userpage

I removed some content from your userpage. My reasoning is that WP:UP#NOT #10 applies. Please do not readd the information. I would suggest you read WP:UP to see what your Userpage can and can not be used for. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is being rather petty --UnTrooper (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting that I abuse wikipedia is a personal attack and is not allowed on any wikipedia page. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was giving to give you abuse, I never said you abused it :S?--UnTrooper (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was open for interpretation. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its deleted now. So we could just let it go?--UnTrooper (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Bono has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. WadeSimMiser (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to the page Bono constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Martin451 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Bono. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling it how it is, everythring I wrote was true, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it, only Bono would disagree and its a democracy.--UnTrooper (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Rodhull andemu 01:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued vandalism to Bono, your personal attacks and general lack of recent useful edits convince me you are NOT here to help build an encyclopedia. --Rodhull andemu 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this, I was asleep at 01:06 AM. Any chance I can contest this on the basis it looks like my account was hacked?--UnTrooper (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)(forgot to sign in my rage lol)[reply]

{{unblock|1=It wasn't me, I have to be up at 6am for work I was well asleep at this time, I'm going to change my password, any chance you have a way of seeing if it was me or not computer wise?}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I decided to give you the benefit of doubt here. Your editing history, albeit brief, shows a certain pattern of times used for editing and there was none later than 23:00 (UTC) before the ones leading to the block, so the compromised account theory might be correct. I unblocked you on a probation though. If you make a single edit like the ones that lead to the block, you will be blocked again without further warnings. I suggest you use a secure password and are careful when using shared computers.

Request handled by: So Why 20:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

{{Helpme}}(bump) Is hacked accounts actually in the unblock criteria, I couldn't find it but I've heard you can just check the IP, can this be done?

I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Appealing a block and especially Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Compromised accounts. You are probably expected to start a new account but I will notify the blocking administrator to review his decision anyway. Regards So Why 12:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I was really confused by all this I read the warnings and thought to myself, "I've not even viewed the Bono page let alone edited it". So I checked the history and just couldn't understand it at all.

Whilst I would agree that it is this editor's responsibility to maintain the security of this account, this edit, made two weeks ago, gives me pause for thought, as well as the somewhat unhelpful attitude towards communication expressed on this talk page. My feeling is that this editor may not be being fully open with us and would welcome some amplification of the circumstances which led to this account being "hacked". Location of computer, other people in that location, etc; if necessary, to maintain privacy, this information may be made available via email. I don't think CheckUser can be used for this purpose and even so, this editor may use a dynamic IP address. Over to you. --Rodhull andemu 12:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply before I read the rules, I've tried to make contructive edits since, I've corrected some articles and started one, although I realised there is an article for that company it does not predate 1997 and the company is actually from the 1930's so I've kept it because the name has changed since. I'm not really into the whole vandalism, it's kind of pointless, but yes before it was inexcusable but this certainly wasn't me and I have no idea what any of that computer lingo meant so I can't really respond. If required I will create a new account it's just I lose credit for my contributions thats all. --UnTrooper (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of this computer, LS11 0LR UniChem Ltd Leeds United Kingdom. Location of the hackers computer? I have no idea. And my home computer doesn't work at the moment, hasn't for about 2 months now.--UnTrooper (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use {{helpme}} for unblock requests or questions related to an open unblock. An admin will be along presently to review your request. Sit tight. //roux 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block part 2

{{Helpme}} I still cannot edit, says I am still blocked? --UnTrooper (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared both autoblocks that were on your account. You should be able to edit normally now.

PS: It would be a good idea if you started using edit summaries. Regards So Why 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help--UnTrooper (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porchesia

I was thinking about creating the "Porchesia" article on the island. I was going to write about the parody itself, since its not a real island but is on several websites would this be an ok thing to do, so long as I don't claim it is a real island that is and just say its an online joke?--UnTrooper (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm dealing with your question, and will answer it here in a few minutes.

-- Chzz ► 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

OK, I just wanted to do a bit of checking up on it before I answered - and the answer is, maybe.

First, it's fine to have such an article, as long as you write it in a factual, non-spoof way. See WP:INUNIVERSE.

Second, it's fine to have an article about internet spoofs, like goatse, rickroll etc.

The question will be notability, and that will depend on whether it can be supported by references to reliable sources, like a news site. If it's well enough known to have news articles about it, and you can find those sources, then yes. If not, no. See WP:N.

Notability is often the most difficult issue with new users and new pages - hundreds of people every day create a site about themselves, or their suburb, and try to claim its important. The articles get deleted pretty quickly. So, if you're going to write an article, make sure you can prove every fact in it with a reference to a news source.

And, if you're not confident about doing that, you might find it better to start off helping edit other articles - just look up something you know ab9out, and see if you can improve it. Most people start that way, and you soon think of other articles to make that link in to them.

I hope this answers your question, good luck, and if I can help more just put another helpme on here, or ask on my own talk page.

Happy editing,

-- Chzz ► 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just checking as its an article that has been deleted before. Well the original article about the island was deleted because the place doesn't exist, it was the deletion of the wikipedia article that started the spoof. See. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Porchesian_Holocaust --UnTrooper (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of My Adventure With Green Day

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article My Adventure With Green Day, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

It is unclear from this (unreferenced) article as to what sort of notability the subject has, or whether it should simply form a part of the relevant album's page.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Unichem.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Unichem.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]