User talk:Wackslas

Sorry about this junk about deleted articles and stuff. I'll clear it up soon. --talk to me! Wackslas!) (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stuff going on, hoping to get unblocked... Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Back on the raaaaaaaaaaag! Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'LL BE BACK IN SIX MONTHS Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Got my talk page rights back, hoping to be unblocked soon... Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am posting this again since you did not seem to read it in the e-mail:

The standard offer is not just something you mention. It is a description of a way to get back into the community. I am willing to post your request for a standard offer to the noticeboard but what you have submitted is not sufficient. I recommend you read the text of the standard offer and prepare a statement.

Your standard offer request should address the reasons you were blocked and explain why they are not likely to reoccur. Standard offer requests that fail to do this, or blame others rarely succeed. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^I know, it was just an update to tell people what's going on. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, I though it was your request. I apologise for the misunderstanding. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brace (grouping)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brace (grouping), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Purely a dictionary definition, no real prospect of enlargement, already transwikied to Wikitionary

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. Scog (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Brace (grouping), even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Frisps

A tag has been placed on Frisps 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, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, 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 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 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 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. Per Ardua (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TJ McClory-Cuthbertson

The article TJ McClory-Cuthbertson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable as per WP:ATHLETE

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Match Attax

I've redirected the article you just created to Match Attax. If you have reliable sources referring to the new year of these trading cards, then you should expand that existing article. Please don't include any unverified information. Fences&Windows 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Otley Town F.C

The article Otley Town F.C has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Amateur football club that has never played in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, the usual benchmark of notability. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources found per WP:GNG

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sam Magri

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.

A tag has been placed on Sam Magri requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on 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 render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NFOOTY for more information about the criteria a football player, especially a youth player, needs to meet to have a Wikipedia article - basically, they must have played at least one game in a professional league. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to spam your talk page like this, but just so you know, I removed the speedy deletion tag - I'm not sure but I think that appearing for England U16 or U17 does show notability. Sorry for the confusionon my part. It would be great if you could find a source or two to verify where he has played, though. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sam Magri

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

Has not made a professional appearance as a footballer.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EchetusXe 23:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam Magri for deletion

The article Sam Magri is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Magri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EchetusXe 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pompey-Spurs rivalry

The article Pompey-Spurs rivalry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not every sports team rivalry is notable enough to justify a full article.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Pompey-Spurs rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pompey-Spurs rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pompey-Spurs rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Singularity42 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Quite anoied

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.

A tag has been placed on Template:Quite anoied, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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 render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NtheP (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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 could 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) 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Pompey-Spurs rivalry. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

• 154 Featured Articles
• 53 Featured Lists
• 7 Featured Topics
• 5 Featured Pictures

• 43 A-Class Articles
• 589 Good Articles
• 9 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: "A-class: Is It Worth It?"
• Interview: Teancum

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

December 2013

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Adam Lallana because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Southampton F.C., you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Southampton F.C.. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Just a bit of banter. Block me permanently next time, yeah? heyo talk to Wackslas (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)}

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request; please note that we do not do banter here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

April 2014

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've done my time

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I know what I did was wrong. It was stupid. I know what kind of disruption this has to people seeking information on certain topics. To do it with multiple warnings was a dumb and childish thing. I understand that. I promise edits after I'm unbanned will be clean and helpful to the site and the particular thing I'm editing. Therefore I believe this block is no longer necessary. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As discussed on this page below. I repeat the warning; an immediate block will be re-imposed in the event of further vandalism. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Mark Arsten (the blocking admin), Anthony Bradbury and Jpgordon (the admins who declined an unblock request each here). Wackslas contacted me via e-mail to take a look at this request. Given that this particular request admits wrongdoing and gives a promise to not disrupt in the future, would any of you have a problem with an unblock? A reblock would be swift and likely without any prior warning should disruption resume. Thanks. Acalamari 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism committed was both extensive and silly. Nevertheless I can accept that people can change, and will agree an unblock if Jpgordon does. I feel the editor should appreciate that I will watch him/her, and would block instantly in response to any vandalism following the unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any objection; I only declined because the request wasn't really an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at London. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I particularly recommend reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As it says, "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus." NebY (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped reverting but he's gone and reverted it again. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No, three different editors have each reverted you once: myself[1], McGeddon[2] and Rob984[3]. At best, that's two more than this should have needed. After the very first, you should have left the article as it was and gone to the talk page to discuss it. But it's worse than that; when you removed the existing images and inserted your own montage, you ignored the line immediately below the list of images, "<!-- NOTE: Do not add or change images without consensus. -->". If you'd paused to glance at the talk page, you'd have noticed that several editors were already discussing the choice of images and the acquisition of fresh images. I don't want to believe you looked and decided to ignore that. NebY (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see it sorry. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Thjr

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 that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Just delete it, I didn't mean to make it. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Buckley (comedian) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Buckley (comedian) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Buckley (comedian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Fit-Boy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fit-Boy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit-Boy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Generic Cunt

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Generic Cunt, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this 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. INeverCry 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello, Wackslas,
I was wondering if Wikipedia:Wikiproject Picture Assemble is an active WikiProject. There is no talk page and it appears to be inactive. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

RFA

I undid your edit to the RFA project page. I'm not sure if you were serious about that, but your transclusion was incorrect to begin with and judging from your contribution history, inappropriate article creation and recent block log, it's unlikely that your candidacy would have succeeded anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Wackslas. I strongly recommend you refrain from going forward with the RfA. I'm sorry, but frankly you don't have enough edits to qualify for adminship at all and the RfA will not succeed and it will be speedily closed per either WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW. My RfA criteria are very lenient compared to many people and even I expect at least 5,000 edits before I would support a candidate. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA

It seems that your RfA is broken. You entered your name as {{User:Wackslas}} which provides a copy of your userpage and messes it up completely. I'm going to see what I can do about removing it, and if you want to make a new one just enter your time as "Wackslas". I've preserved your answers (below), but I'd ask you to seriously consider before you reapply, it may be a little too soon. Anyway, I'm going to try to get the page deleted so you can make a new one if you want, and your answers are below. Kharkiv07^Talk 19:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA Answers

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in? A: Things like blocking, unblocking, copyright, accepting drafts. The usual. 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? A: Adam Buckley (comedian) because it's one of very few of mine that actually stayed up. The one about the biggest UK cities was also good but was taken down so I guess it doesn't count. 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? A: I was in an edit war on the London page, because I personally thought my montage pic was ten times better than the one being used at the time. It was resolved over a discussion. That is how I would deal with it again if it ever happened.

To avoid disappointment, I must tell you that with only just over five hundred edits here in over six years of editing you have really no chance of achieving adminship. Over the last two or three years all successful applicants have had 3000 or more edits, spread across all aspects of Wikipedia. your answers to the questions, which are visible even though the RfA has not been correctly formulated, are also in my personal opinion inadequate. I would earnestly suggest that if you truly want to be an admin you should think of a good reason why you should be given the tools and, while thinking, amass another three thousand or so edits within the project; including article-space, talk-space, Wikipedia-space, project-space, etc.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA

I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful per WP:NOTNOW. Please understand that the RfA arena is harsh and sometimes those with the best of intentions just don't make it. That doesn't mean that your contributions around here aren't valued, it just means that the community isn't quite ready to give you the bit yet. Please try again after you've amassed several thousand edits and have some more experience under your belt. Regards, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers anyway m8. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Green (personality)

Hello Wackslas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Michael Green (personality) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Oceangreenn (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pickleboy (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pickleboy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pickleboy (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pickleboy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Equals Three (show) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Equals Three (show) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equals Three (show) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pickleboy (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kikichugirl was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pickleboy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ComedyShortsGamer (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ComedyShortsGamer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pickleboy (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kethrus was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pickleboy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--  Kethrus |talk to me  14:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Wackslas, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wackslas. Thank you. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I apologize. I didn't know that that could get you banned. Although I only had the account for about a few minutes, I still see how it can be classed as disruptive sockpuppetry. But, I can confirm that it was just the one. In fact, that was the only account other than this current one that I'd signed up in the nearly 7 years I've been here. The truth is, I'm just trying to get some good articles, but when stuff goes downhill, things like this happen. I've been sitting here for a few minutes thinking of how childish my acts were, and I deeply regret them, seriously. I just want to play my part. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In addition to the sockpuppetry, the fact that you've tried to create so many crap articles about non-notable people on Youtube doesn't bode well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Your talk page access has been revoked for being generally tiresome. You can use WP:UTRS if you wish to appeal further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:ComedyShortsGamer concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:ComedyShortsGamer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:ComedyShortsGamer

Hello, Wackslas. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "ComedyShortsGamer".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} oder {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. /wia /tlk 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Pickleboy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Pickleboy, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Pickleboy

Hello, Wackslas. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Pickleboy".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} oder {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #15994 was submitted on Jun 18, 2016 13:29:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request

@HighInBC: I'm trying to get my ban lifted. I was banned back in October 2015 and they said I can go for the standard offer which takes six months. It's been over eight months since I've been banned so that's why I want it lifted. Every time I've said this, I've been told I need to say more about it. Read carefully because I've said this every time I've asked for the block to be lifted: I also sent suggestions to edit Wikipedia while I've been BLOCKED (I said on my last UTRS appeal that it was while I was unblocked but that was a mistake on my part) and that shows my ongoing involvement in the community. Yes, I did have another account and that was why I was blocked but it was a minor mistake that happened late last year so I think it should be long forgotten now. Thank you. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have posted your request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Standard_offer_request_from_Wackslas for the consideration of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)