Vanished user~34r123

'

Talk page revoked, contact WP:BASC to appeal further. 18:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!' Hello, Pixiemasters, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Charlie the drunk guinea pig, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted. There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: Starting an article Your first article Biographies of living persons How to write a great article The five pillars of Wikipedia Help pages Tutorial I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ttonyb (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Charlie the drunk guinea pig 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 Charlie the drunk guinea pig 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. ttonyb (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (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 must 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) 00:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC) I know Drew Harris 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)User: Pixiemasters Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin Brueck 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 Kevin Brueck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{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. ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Bobjenz 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 Bobjenz 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, 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 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. andy (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC) December 2010 Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. andy (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin Brueck You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. A tag has been placed on Kevin Brueck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Bobjenz You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. A tag has been placed on Bobjenz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Article creation Please refer to Wikipedia:Starting_an_article and Wikipedia:Your first article for information on starting an article for publication on Wikipedia. Thank you. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin Brueck 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. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will 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 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. ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 02:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC) This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 02:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Vanished user~34r123. You have new messages at Gfoley4's talk page. Message added 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Help channel If you need more help please go here, type in a nickname, and ask your question. ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 03:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Incidentally Hi, Pixiemasters, you'll likely not be pleased about this but I have suppressed a number of edits to your userspace which reveal too much personally identifiable information about yourself. I've done this per policy and for your own protection and safety on-line as you are a self-declared minor. I'm really sorry about that and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add it. For some useful information on privacy and safety, take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages - Risker (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Writing articles Try going here. It helps you create an article. When you get to step 6 click on the top button. Cheers, →♠GƒoleyFour♠← 04:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC) help {{helpme}} Can someone help me create daneboe, bobjenz, and kevin brueck? Hi there, I see you're having some trouble. Could you briefly explain to me here who these people are and why they are notable? -- œ™ 05:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC) they voice the annoying orange! acually, they voice characters on the annoying orange! Drew Harris 05:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[[User: Pixiemasters Ahh The Annoying Orange. I see. Well, Wikipedia is not easy.. there is a lot of reading and learning you must do before you can effectively create an article. Considering your skill level perhaps you may want to experiment a bit first in the Wikipedia:Sandbox, afterwards, read the WP:Tutorial, followed by WP:Your first article, then give the Article wizard a try. If you still need help, try posting at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Regards, œ™ 05:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin brueck 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 Kevin brueck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{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. Kudpung (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Bobjenz 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 Bobjenz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{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.   -- Lear's Fool 05:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) This is your only warning. If you create an inappropriate page again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Charlie the drunk guinea pig Bobjenz x 2 Kevin Brueck x 3 and now Kevin brueck Seven nonsense pages is enough.Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Hi everybody. See above response to Ol English. They voice The Annoying Orange. So they are not nonsense articles but non notable folks who do YouTube videos. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC) The block is not for article titles, but for their content (examples: articles with the only phrase "kevin brueck (born ) is a" or "bobjenz (born ) is") and other edits like [1] [2] [3]. They are more of incompetence than blatant vandalism, and most important here rather reluctance to stop after numerous warnings (the quoted examples were last). Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the clarification. I suspect the user is very young. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) unblock 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: i was waiting for someone to help me create the page. why did u guys block me? Drew Harris (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: The reason for your block has been provided above. 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 understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  07:44, 7 January 2011 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: i was waiting for someone to help me create these articles and the secret password is: I'm really really sorry and i will never do it again. i understand what i was blocked for and i will make good contributations (i don't really know how to spell that) instead. Decline reason: Actually, you were offered help more than once. It appears that you were not capable of taking advantage of the advice that was offered. Before posting another unblock request, perhaps you could post a message explaining specifically how you would be able to help out on Wikipedia. Tiderolls 21:17, 8 January 2011 (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. Unblock 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: My quote is right here. Im so sorry for the wrong stuff i did in the past. I wont do it again i promise. I really really promise. Wikipedia prizon is where i dont belong. I dont deserve a wall over the editing enterance. I was offered help more than once which i didnt know that i was offered. Please unblock me. Also, look at my user page. Decline reason: This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by: Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules. Read our guide to improving articles Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve. If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to: Click the Edit tab at the top of that article; Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:  • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});  • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);  • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);  • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}}); Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet; Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution." You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save. Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies. When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits. If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked. If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2011 (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. unblock return 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: im so sorry that i did a whole lot of vandalism in the past. i am wiling to help out wikipedia by fixing typos, adding more information when possible, help out with deletion commitees, etc. i don't deserve a life sentence in wikipedia, i deserve to be helping wikipedia. now please unblock me and i'll do the right stuff. ok? I've changed since i wasted my wikipedia criminal record.and also, look at the front of my user page. i deserve to help and do the right thing. and also, on my second attempt to get unblocked, when i said that i was looking for help, and he said that i was offered more than once, i didn't know that ppl were trying to help me. so, can you unblock me? pretty please? Decline reason: You've been offered a second chance above, I'd suggest you follow those instructions if you wish to be unblocked. This isn't a "life sentence" and there's no "criminal record" - blocks are intended to prevent disruption, not punish. However, you need to convince us the disruption won't continue if you are unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:49, 11 March 2012 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: im so sorry that i did a whole lot of vandalism in the past. i am wiling to help out wikipedia by fixing typos, adding more information when possible, help out with deletion commitees, etc. i don't deserve a life sentence in wikipedia, i deserve to be helping wikipedia. now please unblock me and i'll do the right stuff. ok? I've changed since i wasted my wikipedia criminal record.and also, look at the front of my user page. i deserve to help and do the right thing. and also, on my second attempt to get unblocked, when i said that i was looking for help, and he said that i was offered more than once, i didn't know that ppl were trying to help me. so, can you unblock me? pretty please? also, if i do good, i could get a plate of cookies! oh and btw, when i say life sentence and criminal record, I'm not saying it in a way that blocks are for punishment. I'm just saying that its LIKE it, not that it is. look at the statement below. the preexisting article that I'm willing to improve with the help of admins like u are as follows: well, basically, anything involving good youtube videos. anyway, this good statement will help you guys. Decline reason: I'm sorry but nothing in this request, or the rest of your talk page, in any way convinces me that you have the necessary level of maturity needed to edit Wikipedia Jac16888 Talk 00:34, 12 March 2012 (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. yes, i know the unblock request above this text is already declined, i just resubmitted it so i could edit it Drew Harris (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Don't remove declined appeals. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC) how would we be able to edit the request and then suddenly, someone is alreading answering it? Drew Harris (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) You can use the "Show preview" button to review your statement before it gets posted; this reduces the number of edit conflicts you'll encounter. IN any event, nothing you added is material to your unblock appeal, and I doubt any administrator will be willing to unblock you until you follow the fairly standard instructions left by Beeblebrox. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC) redid it again. ready for proposal. despite the fact that i don't have much advanced experience, i can still help wiki. Drew Harris (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC) please? i have regained my maturity! 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: previously, i have did bad stuff to wikipedia. now, i'm back on track. basically, this block should be obsolete because i regained maturity, i am willing to make info up-to-date, make useful articles with the help of admins, and i would love to work my way up the track to wikipedia. can you please give me a 1 month trial with a list of stuff i can improve? if yes, i will get goin' on it. later, if i would finish the list and then if i did great job with wiki community service, i would be back to unblocked, i would get a plate of cookies, and then i would work my way to reviewer, then to an administrator. i am willing to contribute to wikipedia in a awesome, caring, and helping way. i would participate in investigations, and propose keep or delete on articles during a deletion discussion. wouldn't i be a great wiki-contributer? really. please trust me. i would also use articles for creation and the teahouse. i also have an account on wikia carried drewiestewie and i basically haven't used it much yet, but i will soon get on to the improvements there soon.Drew Harris (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: Beeblebrox has explained what to do, above - please re-read and follow his instructions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2012 (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. please? i have regained my maturity and responsibility! 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: previously, i have did bad stuff to wikipedia. now, i'm back on track. basically, this block should be obsolete because i regained maturity, i am willing to make info up-to-date, make useful articles with the help of admins, and i would love to work my way up the track to wikipedia. can you please give me a 1 month trial with a list of stuff i can improve? if yes, i will get goin' on it. later, if i would finish the list and then if i did great job with wiki community service, i would be back to unblocked, i would get a plate of cookies(in wikipedia), and then i would work my way to reviewer, then to an administrator, using very hard work since i know how to type essays and that would teach me how to write whats needed on wikipedia. i am willing to contribute to wikipedia in a awesome, caring, and helping way. i would participate in investigations, and propose keep or delete on articles during a deletion discussion. wouldn't i be a great wiki-contributer? really. please trust me. i would also use articles for creation and the teahouse. i also have an account on wikia carried drewiestewie and i basically haven't used it much yet, but i will soon get on to the improvements there soon.im so sorry that i did a whole lot of vandalism in the past. i am wiling to help out wikipedia by fixing typos, adding more information when possible, help out with deletion commitees, etc. i don't deserve a life sentence in wikipedia, i deserve to be helping wikipedia. now please unblock me and i'll do the right stuff. ok? I've changed since i wasted my wikipedia criminal record.and also, look at the front of my user page. i deserve to help and do the right thing. and also, on my second attempt to get unblocked, when i said that i was looking for help, and he said that i was offered more than once, i didn't know that ppl were trying to help me. so, can you unblock me? pretty please? also, if i do good, i could get a plate of cookies(in wikipedia, not in real life, obviously)! oh and btw, when i say life sentence and criminal record, I'm not saying it in a way that blocks are for punishment. I'm just saying that its LIKE it, not that it is. look at the statement below. the preexisting article that I'm willing to improve with the help of admins like u are as follows: well, basically,everything on wikipedia that's needs fixing. anyway, this good statement will help you guys. Basically, i know what User: Beeblebrox is saying and that i agree with him.Drew Harris (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: Pixiemasters, I know you mean well, but one of the threads I see running through the original block is that you weren't listening. In a collaborative environment, it's very important to carefully listen to other editors. You've been pointed several times back to Beeblebrox's instructions as to what to do in order to request an unblock. This is a standard offer we often make to blocked editors. Please go read those instructions again, and follow them exactly. Before considering an unblock, I need to see it demonstrated that, firstly, you can improve an article, and secondly, that you are willing to listen. If you will do so, I would be quite favorably disposed to consider your unblock request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 31 May 2012 (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. I suggest to everyone that let us all give User:Pixiemasters a final chance this time by which they can contribute to Wikipedia as they are promising and they be constantly monitored so that everything goes smoothly. I recommend that let this be the only last chance so that Pixiemasters get to improve themselves and Wikipedia too and if things go wrong then its an indefinite block permanently. Administrator's let's consider this as their only last as they have themselves promised. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC) thank you general user. i am sure that i can do the best outta everything. if i win, can u give me a list of things needing improvement? Drew Harris (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC) There is no such thing as winning or losing here. I strongly suggest that you re-read all the reasons given above in your previously declined unblock requests and clearly demonstrate that you want to help the project. And before you would go and start improving any articles, i think you really should join a Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program which will help you guide and learn the basics of editing and using Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC) ahem. srry for saying that. i meant to say if the request works. anyway, thanks for the consideration. i will definitely take the advice and join.Drew Harris (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Good to hear that, no problem :). I can put up the {{Adopt me}} template on your user page, what do you say ? It will help in finding the adopter as soon as possible. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Help: i need help putting on the adoption template! sos Drew Harris (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC) nvm i got how to put the template on now :) ill tell u my adoption coach in a minute Drew Harris (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)  Done I have put up the adoption template on your user page, there is no need to put it on user talk page so i am removing it. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC) i choose user: bernstein2291 Drew Harris (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC) That's okay, but you need to hold off until you get unblocked and do not add the adoption template on your user talk page again which i had removed, it is not required here, just on user page. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC) To be quite honest, all of this "i would be back to unblocked, i would get a plate of cookies, and then i would work my way to reviewer, then to an administrator" stuff just sounds to me like a kid who really isn't mature enough to work here - and I no signs of understanding anything that the various unblock reviewers have been saying. I would oppose any unblock unless one of the following two things happens... Pixiemasters/Drew Harris follows Beeblebrox's 2nd chance suggestion, above, and demonstrates the ability to make a useful edit here on this Talk page. Pixiemasters/Drew Harris is accepted by a mentor, and agrees to follow that mentor's guidance strictly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) I completely agree with User:Boing! said Zebedee. Saying things like this doubt us all on your intentions to contribute to the project. Just forget about becoming a reviewer or an administrator or anything like that. Right now and for the coming time you need to focus on becoming a positive contributor to Wikipedia and focus on helping the project. Until and unless you agree and finalize on all the terms and conditions given above to you by User:Beeblebrox, User:Boing! said Zebedee, by me and other users and administrators you will not be unblocked. So that's why you need to make a responsible decision first before getting unblocked (if possible). TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) you know what guys? i agree with all of you. i will just do hard work on wikipedia so that i can be a great wikipedian so that i could bbe trusted by others. That's what its saying on the request. Can you please approve or decline the request?Drew Harris (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC) More vague promises is not the path to being unblocked. In the time since I explained how to get a second chance, you have been pointed back to my remarks three or four times, yet I see no effort whatsoever towards following the process outloned there. It is time to put up or shut up. I will post the instructions again here, follow them, or stop requesting unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC) This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by: Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules. Read our guide to improving articles Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve. If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to: Click the Edit tab at the top of that article; Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:  • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});  • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);  • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);  • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}}); Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet; Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution." You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save. Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies. When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits. If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked. If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. I have resigned my maturity in order to provide you with a cookie I can't help with any of your other requests, but since you have several times requested cookies, here is a cookie (due to the current economic climate, full plates of cookies are not available). Enjoy! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC) aok. as long as there's cookies, its ok. Drew Harris (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Adoption Hello Pixiemasters! I see that you have been blocked from editing because of the repeated recreation of inappropriate pages - and that someone has recommended adoption to you! It's pretty sad to see you blocked, but no worries! I am willing to teach you about the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and what Wikipedia is and isn't. Study seriously, and you can end up being one of the encyclopedia's most prolific editors. I'll be happy to adopt you because I enjoy working with others – especially to help them become a better editor on Wikipedia! Take a look at my edit history; I usually work at Articles for Deletion, Articles for Creation, in new page patrolling, and in vandalism-fighting. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a year, and have made over 15,000 edits to the encyclopedia. I'm usually available on Wikipedia from 0:00 - 5:00 and occasionally from 12:00-16:00 (all times UTC). I travel frequently, usually on business trips around the world. I'm so young, yet so busy. If I adopt you, I promise I will provide you with the most friendly, easy, and convenient adoption service through my adoption school. If you think I am the right a dopter for you, we shall get started now! →Bmusician 09:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you! I automatically accept your offer. Before you offered me, i was reviewing the what wikipedia is and not and other advice pages, so im arleady in a head start. I know that you will teach me more, but at least i came to you with some knowledge:) can you also gime me pst times for when ur on? I dont really understand utc that much. I also have an account on wikia called drewiestewie and it hasnt been used much yet, but the improvements will havven soon. Drew Harris (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Might I suggest that the first thing you work on is getting Pixiemasters to follow the instructions in the {{2ndchance}} template which I and several other administrators have referred to when declining to unblock this user? Getting an adopter is a good step, but before this account is unblocked a display of good faith to demonstrate that this is not a waste of time is still in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I know. I will answer those questions later,but will print the words so that i can remember the excact words. I wont resubmit yet, considering im busy throughout the day. Drewiestewie (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Well that's just sad. Despite having had nine months to review those instructions, this remark makes it clear that you have not even read them yet. If you are trying to prove you can listen and learn, you are not doing a very good job at all right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC) actually, i am reading and TRYING to say your instructions, but it doesn't go well wien I'm trying to do it. i also take breaks from requests time after time. understand why it sometimes takes time? sometimes, words aren't that powerful enough to work. right? it happens to everyone who proposes stuff. [User:Pixiemasters|Drewiestewie]] (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC) The instructions on the {{2ndchance}} template are simple: go to any page (click here for a random page) and copy and paste its source to the bottom of this page. After doing so, propose some edits to the article by editing your own copy: no minor typo fixtures/small unreferenced edits, what an admin is looking for are substantial edits that reflect established policy and guidelines. Like let's say you would like to improve the article The Annoying Orange. Copy and paste its source to your talk page, and get started. (Any article can work.) Thanks, →Bmusician 06:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Ok! Ill start tommorow due to my business throughout the day, Drewiestewie (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC) New signature My signature is now drewiestewie. Thank you. Drewiestewie (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) this time, for real. 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: srry I'm late for the unblock request and srry that 2nd chance is in the unblock request. i did it so that i could remember what to say. anyway, here it is. i am familiar with wikipedias basic rules, because at first, i ignored these rules. today, i read it and now i understand how wikipedia works and i have acknowledged it so that i can be right. i have read the guide to improving articles, acknowledged it and will use it in the following way: 1: making info up-to-date. 2: fixing vandalism. 3: making corrections. 4: putting up correct information. for a preexisting article, i choose - well, anything involving entertainment. Decline reason: Your inablity to follow a simple set of instructions indicates that the problems you've been blocked for are still present. Thus, I'm protecting this page for 1 year - I hope you'll mature by then. I understand this is an extreme measure, but the load of declined requests above leaves me no other option. Max Semenik (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2012 (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. But you haven't done the 2nd chance work! You have to do that here on your talk page before you get unblocked! Do you really not understand that after having been told multiple times? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Ok. you are now familiar with the policy, why not choose an article you like to improve, copy it over here and improve so we can see what you would do to the article.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC) ok, will do in a minute. first, I'm hungry. will brb at 6:45-7:00 pm pst. Drewiestewie (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I'm beginning to believe that there is a maturity issue here and that WP:CIR is needed before much improvement can be expected. I'll be happy to be proven otherwise. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC) The standard remedy for maturity (this goes to you Pixiemasters) is to wait. No-one seems to realize the amount of maturity that can be gained over the course of a full year or two - leading me to suggest a wait of at least one year before attempting a comeback.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Amen. Max Semenik (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Back, and I'm a better person 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). Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Ok, I'm back. And i am here to request unblock because i grew up and became more mature. I will go on Wikipedia a lot more often and make more thorough, longer, sensible edits to pages on wikipedia, specifically on the WWE project, mainly because it's my new interest, and i will give you an example of my article sills by doing a self-written article on Bret "The Hitman" Hart. Please, do not decline or accept this unblock request until i have posted the article. Decline reason: Your apparent continued refusal to make the good-faith edits requested above is enough of a reason to not only decline this request but to revoke your ability to appeal in this manner. If you want to ask for unblocking in the future you will need to contact WP:BASC by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2013 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Here's my article. Bret "The Hitman" Hart (also known by his nicknames "The Pink and Black Attack", "The Excellence of Execution", and "The Best There Is, The Best There Was, and The Best There Ever Will Be" (born July 2, 1957) is a retired canadian professional wrestler working with the WWE under a Legends contract. He is a 5 time WWF Champion and 2 time WCW World Heavyweight Champion and is the longest reigning WWF champion in the 1990's, holding the title for 654 days. Bret Hart joined the WWF in 1984 as a villain teaming up with his brother-in-law Jim Neidhart to join the heel stable The Hart Foundation. They won their first of 2 WWF Tag Team Championships on the February 7, 1987 edition of WWF Superstars of Wrestling from The British Bulldogs. They would later lose the championships to Strike Force on the October 27, 1987 edition of WWF Superstars of Wrestling. Bret later became the very first entrant on the very first Royal Rumble match at the Royal Rumble 1988. The Hart Foundation later became fan favorites and Bret would start giving out his pink sunglasses to a young fan at ringside. At Summerslam 1990 on August 27, 1990, The Hart Foundation won their second and final WWF Tag Team Championship, defeating Demolition in a two of three falls match with a little bit a help from the Legion of Doom. On October 30, 1990, at a house show, they would lose the championship to The Rockers, but a few days later, the WWF President at that time, Jack Tunney gave the championships back to The Hart Foundation because he discovered that a rope came off the turnbuckle and that the change was never acknowledged on television. They lost the championships at Wrestlemania VII on March 24, 1991 to The Nasty Boys. After the match, The Hart Foundation split up. At Summerslam 1991 on August 26,1991, he won the Intercontinental Championship after putting Mr. Perfect into the sharpshooter. He also won the 1990 King of the Ring tournament on September 7, 1991. On January 17, 1992, at a house show, Bret lost the Intercontinental Championship to The Mountie. He would later regain the title at Wrestlemania VIII on April 5, 1992 from Roddy Piper, and in the process, becoming the first and few wrestlers to ever pin Roddy's shoulders to the wrestling mat. Bret would later defeat Shawn Michaels to retain the championship in the first ever ladder match at a taping of WWF Wrestling Challenge on July 21, 1992. At Summerslam 1992 on August 29, 1992, Hart lost the Intercontinental Championship to his brother-in-law Davey Boy Smith in front of an audience of 80,335 at the Wembley Stadium at London, England. Next month, On the October 12, 1992 edition of WWF Superstars of Wrestling, Bret won the WWF Championship from Ric Flair. The match wasn't televised, but was released on home video. During the match, Hart dislocated on of his fingers, but popped it back in so it wouldn't affect him throughout the match. At Wrestlemania IX, the very first outdoor Wrestlemania, on April 4, 1993, he lost the championship to Yokozuna. Yokozuna was about to tap out to the sharpshooter when Mr. Fuji threw salt into Hart's eyes, blinding him, and Yokozuna defeated Bret. While Hulk Hogan was helping Hart back to the locker room, Hogan challenged Yokozuna for the championship. Mr. Fuji accidentally threw salt into Yokozuna's eyes and Hogan won the title. Bret would then go on to win the first PPV King of the Ring Tournament, becoming the first two time King of the Ring. Next year, at the Royal Rumble 1994 on January 22, 1994, Hart and Lex Luger won the Royal Rumble Match at the same time after they both eliminated each other at the same time. Hart would win his second WWF Championship at Wrestlemania X on March 20, 1994 from Yokozuna. At Survivor Series 1994 on November 23, 1994, Bret lost his WWF Championship to Bob Backlund. At the King of the Ring 1995 on June 25, 1995, Hart defeated Jerry "The King" Lawler in a Kiss My Foot match. Jerry was forced to kiss Bret's foot, and Bret also forced Lawler to kiss his own foot. At Survivor Series 1995, Hart defeated Diesel in a No Dq match to win his third WWF Championship. At Wrestlemania XII on March 31, 1996, Hart lost the title to Shawn Michaels in a 60 minute iron man match. The 60 minutes were up, leading to Hart retaining the title, however, then WWF President Gorilla Monsoon ruled that it would go to a sudden death match, meaning that the person who pins or make his opponent submit will win. Michaels pinned hart, making him win the title. At Survivor Series 1996, Hart defeated Stone Cold Steve Austin in a Number 1 Contenders match for the WWF Championship after an 8 month hiatus. Hart later originally won the 1997 Royal Rumble Match at the Royal rumble 1997 on January 19, 1997. However, Austin, who the referees didn't see the elimination of him, went back into the ring and won the Royal Rumble that year. To make up for it, the WWF set up a Fatal 4-Way match at WWF In Your House 13: Final Four on Feburary 16, 1997 with the people Austin had eliminated for the WWF Championship. The match had Steve Austin, Vader, The Undertaker, and Bret Hart in it. Bret Hart won the match, thereby winning the WWF Championship. The next night on Raw is War, however, he lost the championship to Psyco Sid. After the match, he shoved Mr. McMahon to the floor and yelled a profane rant. this action started the Attitude Era of WWF and, at Survivor Series 1997, caused the Montreal Screwjob. At Wrestlemania XIII, on March 23, 1997, Hart and Austin had their rematch that was , however, not a WWF Championship match, but instead a submission match. Hart won after he placed Austin in the sharpshooter. Austin refused to quit, however, he fainted from blood loss, and special guest referee Ken Shamrock awarded the match to Hart. Hart would then continuously attack Austin, turning Hart into a bad guy and Austin into a good guy. Hart would then become Anti-American and Pro-Canadian. This view saw Hart become very despised by American Audiences. At Summerslam 1997, on August 3, 1997, Hart defeated The Undertaker for the WWF Championship. If Hart lost, he would never be able to wrestle in the United States again, and if special guest referee Shawn Michaels did not call the match right, he wouldnt be able to wrestle in the U.S. either. Hart won after he spit in Shawn's face. Shawn grabbed a chair and tried to hit Bret, but Bret dodged and instead hit Undertaker. Hart pinned Undertaker and won his fifth WWF Championship. After this victory, Hart became a face again and Michaels turned heel when bret stated that he not Anti-American, but very Pro-Canadian. Between Summerslam and Survivor Series, Hart's feud with Mr. McMahon escalated. The previous year, Hart signed a 20 year deal with the WWF. WWF was in financial peril and couldn't afford the contract. In response, Hart signed a 3 year deal with WCW, WWF'S rival at the time. At Survivor Series 1997, on November 9, 1997, Bret Hart lost the WWF Championship to Shawn Michaels in the Montreal Screwjob. Bret Hart suffered a kick to the head in December 1999 during a match against Bill Goldberg. Hart later retired from in-ring competition. In 2002, Hart suffered a stroke after a bicycle accident. in 2006, Hart was inducted to the WWE Hall of Fame. In 2010, Hart had a brief sting in the WWE in 2010. This included being guest host of WWE Raw, a win over Mr. McMahon at Wrestlemania 2010, a United States Championship reign, and WWE Raw General Manager. His contract then expired in 2010. Impressed or not? It's self-written.

Decline reason:

Block Evasion. Talk page protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2013 (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.

I have officially learned my lesson.

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).

Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hey. It's been three years since I've been blocked. I got blocked three years ago because of one thing: Stupidity. Stupidity. Stupidity. Today, it may have taken over three years, but I have officially learned my lesson. You never repetitively try to make pages when you don't know how to do them. I am very sorry for what I did. I have made WAY too many mistakes in the past. Today, It is now the time I start to make up for it. To start, I'll make a custom portion of an article on my talk page (see below) on WrestleMania Challenges. You see, I have been interested in joining WikiProject Professional Wrestling, because I'm a huge WWE fan and i can give great information on the topic. See below, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block evasion. As explained at the top of this page, you may appeal your block by emailing the ban appeals subcommittee, not by evading your block to post unblock requests. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 17 February 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.

User Talk: Pixiemasters (edit | [[Talk:User Talk: Pixiemasters|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection: Oh my gosh. I didn't realize I was just evading right there. Sorry. Please indefinitely fully protect this page until I get unblocked in order to prevent further evasion. Instead, I will actually use the unblock ticket request system. Sorry! Won't happen again. 76.220.66.126 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WrestleMania Challenges

The WWE has put on challenges that the winners will receive free tickets to WrestleMania XXX. In those challenges, the challenger has to do a specific thing, and they would win either tickets to WrestleMania XXX or any other type of sweepstakes. A couple of these challenges include:

WrestleMania XXX Moment: This challenge was contested on the WWE 2K14 servers. In this challenge, you had to go onto the WrestleMania XXX Moment chapter on the 30 Years of WrestleMania mode and choose a match to play out of. You would then play the match and during the match, you would have to save a screenshot of a moment your liked during the match, and then you would send the photo to 2K. The challenge was contest between October 29 until January 9. The top ten photos would be sent an email and they would post it onto the WWE 2K14 online servers. The top ten photos would then be voted by the general public. The winner would receive free airfare, hotel reservations, and two free tickets to WrestleMania XXX. As of yet, the winner is still being decided.

WrestleMania XXX Reading Challenge: In this challenge, children between the ages of four-eighteen would choose from a list of reading buddies, including Daniel Bryan, A. J. Lee, The Bella Twins, Dolph Ziggler, Rey Mysterio, Big Show, amongst others. They would then read from a wide selection of books, and when they finished the book, they would enter the competition and be entered for sweepstakes, including a WWE Superstar visiting their school, a wide selection of books being given to their school library, or two free tickets to WrestleMania XXX. The competition is still being held, running from January 17 until March 7.

I don't have sources for this, which I will only be doing on the actual articles.

Unblock and clean start request for 2018

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

Vanished user~34r123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So, I have returned one more time to this account, as I have been granted the opportunity to request an unblock on here and WP:CLEANSTART under the account I have been using for the past four years, User:DrewieStewie. To start off, I completely, unconditionally, and acceptingly understand that the block was procedural and necessary for Wikipedia policy, and that it was nothing personal on anybody's part. So no worries about that. Appreciation to User:Chetsford for awarding me the Barnstar of Integrity and for positively understanding the situation at hand and responding accordingly. :) Anyways, almost everything you see on this account, except for this unblock request I'm making in 2018, does not in any way, shape, or form represent who and how I am now. I have now and long met WP:CIR, and as you can see on the account I have been using, I am extended autoconfirmed with over 500 edits and my edits have been constructive and almost always in good faith, mostly for WikiProject Professional Wrestling, as mentioned on that account, but also for other topics as well. Whenever I encountered a problem with other editors, I would do my best to remedy the situations at hand. I profusely apologize for using a policy contrary, underhanded tactic called block evasion for the past four years to use that account, and I kindly and respectfully request to be unblocked on here and there so I can clear this mess up for good and formally (not underhandedly and unofficially) clean start under the extended autoconfirmed account I have been using for over four years now. Plus, on a lesser note, I'd rather be known as DrewieStewie than under the alias Pixiemasters that I came up with when I was nine. I really wish I could've handled the situation better then, but I was just too young and immature to understand and conform with what I was being asked, and then I went as far as block evasion. I regret that choice. I don't regret all the good I've done on the account I have been using, but I regret the means I used to obtain that account. I'm really sorry for violating policy that way. I'm happy and thankful that I could come clean and be honest and be granted a chance at redemption on here. Should I be forgiven and unblocked, I promise I will continue to serve Wikipedia for the better as DrewieStewie and never vandalize or evade again. There would be no need for me or anybody to on here. I truly appreciate the opportunity I've been granted to request to unblock and clean start on the account I've been using. Thank you so much! :) On one more note, my signature here on this Pixiemasters account is the same as the name of the account I’ve been using for the past for years, to clear up confusion. Drewiestewie (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

DrewieStewie (talk · contribs) has been unblocked as requested, and this old account will be renamed to obscurity.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Comment While this was a good block, I also think an unblock so that the editor can CLEANSTART under account DrewieStewie would be warranted. I don't have any editing history with Drewiestewie / Pixiemasters, however, based solely on their explanation of events I think it would a bit gothic for us to penalize them for a transgression that occurred when they were nine (!) years old (i.e. [4]). Because blocks are protective, rather than punitive, I don't see a good reason to continue it in light of the explanation given and time passed.
  I'd also like to add it's very impressive and a testament to their maturity that they disclosed their previous account of their own volition; it would have been far easier for them to simply have not acknowledged it and continued editing. Based on this fact alone I think Drewiestewie / Pixiemasters has demonstrated the potential to be a very productive editor and it would be a shame, and a net loss to WP, if we discouraged them. The way they handled this shows a comportment beyond their years, in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to grant this unblock request but I do have some concerns about the notion of a clean start under the other account name. That account is not "clean" because it has been used to evade a block for four years. I think a completely new account would be best, but I am willing to listen to the input of other administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have requested additional input at WP:AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

They were evading the block until today: our normal response is to block and say come back in 6 months. On the flip-side, we wouldn’t have known unless they told us. I’m generally very unforgiving on socking until there have been 6 months with no socks, and that’s my inclination here, but I also understand the other view. I’d decline per the sock policy, but I could also see a reasonable IAR argument. Not sure if this is much help, Cullen. I might also ping a CU on this to see if there are other accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, there is that, but I feel the account is otherwise clean when not putting that into account. Plus, there was no malicious intent with creating that account. Plus, I am already extended autoconfirmed (over a year and 500 edits), so why restart that process now over this if it’s otherwise clean and in good faith besides that policy violation that I have profusely apologized for? That’s my main concern, and I appreciate everybody’s input. :) Drewiestewie (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. You can't possibly claim you respect our rules if you've been continuously breaking them for the past 4 years. User:DrewieStewie is evidence not of a triumph of rehabilitation, but of disregard for our community and its norms. Max Semenik (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I do respect the rules. I’ve only broken that rule, not any others. All other signs point to me being a constructive, well intending, productive editor. And just because I broke it doesn’t mean I don’t regret or remorse breaking it and don’t respect it. Myself, along with at least one other, believe that granting an unblock would do more benefit than harm to the community. Thank you for your input though. :) Drewiestewie (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I personally see the block as more of a punishment than preventative. I looked at DrewieStewie and didn't see any major wrongdoing on that account except for the block evasion. So to me the DrewieStewie account shows me the user wants to make good faith contributions to wikipedia but it also shows they have recently used socks to evade their block. But I think coming clean about it shows they will most likely won't do it again. Also I don't believe we should punish people who come clean when they were never accused of anything. Afootpluto (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Yunshui: Any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, since you asked... personally I'm curious as to what prompted this sudden need to confess. A quiet return isn't something I'm a fan of, but at least it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia - this does; witness the number of editors who have already become involved.

Block evasion isn't something we should encourage. Unblocking here kind of sends the message that it's okay to evade a block if you don't get caught, which doesn't sit comfortably with me at all. That said, DrewieStewie hasn't been a particularly problematic user, and wouldn't be blocked if it weren't for the evasion - they have shown that they can avoid the behaviour that led to the initial block. I'm therefore tentatively in favour of unblocking, but I'm not at all happy about it. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Very good, respectable points, Yunshui I just felt the confession was necessary as I felt I couldn’t be an honest, trustworthy Wikipedian without confessing sooner or later. I also wanted to repent for my Wikipedia sins, so to speak. The goal here on my part isn’t to encourage block evasion without getting caught. The message I am sending is to take responsibility for your actions and come clean and be honest if you did something like this and respectfully, apologetically, and candorly handle the situation to ultimately make it better for everybody and come together and do what we came here to do: construct an encyclopedia. :) Drewiestewie (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock (per WP:NOTBURO if you like). Yes, technically this was block evasion. But Drewiestewie could simply have kept quiet and never been noticed, and I think honesty should be rewarded rather than punished - and I see no complaints about their actual edits, and so nothing that needs to be prevented. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!. There could be an argument made that keeping them blocked (until an appeal in ~6 months) would in general deter block evasion, but for Drewiestewie it'd essentially be a punitive punishment block, so unblock.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously unblock. Why is this even being discussed? Here is someone who when he was a child did some stuff which was immature and unsuitable for Wikipedia. When he was still a child, though a rather older one, he started evading the block. He is now pretty well adult, he has totally different attitudes, and is able to contribute as a constructive editor. Among the change in attitude he is no longer happy to be editing dishonestly, and has come clean about his childhood history. Keeping the account blocked would not prevent any future repetition of the problems which took place 8 years ago, and would be purely punitive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Another voice for unblocking. Alex Shih has stated at WP:AN that he or she would support an unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Pixiemasters: Obviously I will be unblocking Drewiestewie. But do you wish to move this account and the Drewiestewie accounts to obscure names so you can start over with a fresh Drewiestewie?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

My only concern with that is that I’m already extended autoconfirmed on DrewieStewie. Otherwise I would’ve been willing to. But I’m concerned about having to start that extended autoconfirmation process of a year and 500 edits over again. If I have no other choice but to do that over again, then so be it, I’ll compromise on that. But if I can still have that standing, I would truly appreciate it. Thank you for discussing everything out with me and finding a solution beneficiary for everyone! :) Drewiestewie (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed can be manually set by an admin, and I'd certainly be prepared to enable that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds great. I gladly and gratefully accept those offers and conditions. Drewiestewie (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pixiemasters: Alright, here's what I am going to do. Both accounts are going to be renamed to something obscure. Once that is done, you can recreate the DrewieStewie account, after which I will confirm and extended confirm it. Then you'll be on your merry way. Let me know when you're ready to proceed.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Are you sure that the editor will be able to recreate the DrewieStewie account? I may be wrong, and you may know far more about this than I do, but I am under the impression that fairly recent changes mean that recreating a user name of an account that has been renamed is no longer possible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't heard of such a thing. If that is true, and he can't recreate the account, I can just move it back.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am ready. I'll still have access to these (soon to be obscurely renamed) accounts for the purpose of future reference or transferring info onto the new clean account, right? just making sure and having all the necessary information. Drewiestewie (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

After James brought it to my attention that accounts can not be created if formerly owned by an account, I'm going to change things up a bit. I will be renaming Pixiemasters. DrewieStewie, you can go ahead and create a new account now, and I will usurp your current DrewieStewie account and move your new account in its place and assign rights, or I leave the current DrewieStewie in place and unblock it now. Which would you like? Sorry for dragging this out.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Don’t worry, it’s all good. I’m not in a particular rush. I guess I’d prefer to leave the current DrewieStewie in place and have that unblocked, as that’s the less demanding choice for everybody. I’m willing to do the other one if necessary though, but unless I have no other choice but to do that, we shall stick with unblocking DrewieStewie. Appreciate you working everything out with me, slowly but surely and efficiently. Drewiestewie (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pixiemasters: I've unblocked your DrewieStewie account, and I will be renaming this account now. You may wish to logout from this account now, and log back in there. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)