User talk:AndreaTrue77

Speedy deletion of Stunt cock[edit]

A tag has been placed on Stunt cock, 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, 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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stunt cock[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stunt cock, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Booglamay (talk) - 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stunt cock[edit]

I have nominated Stunt cock, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunt cock. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AndreaTrue77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I blocked? I am not "Wiki brah." Do you have any basis for that?

Decline reason:

Per checkuser jpgordon, below. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, you were blocked by a checkuser, so I'd assume he has some evidence based on your IP address. I'll contact him now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's exactly the same person as User:Rainbowwarrior1977, User:JeanLatore, User:Fecal Matters, etc., etc. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?But I am not. Why do you say such? AndreaTrue77 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AndreaTrue77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't see any evidence of a checkuser. This block is unjustified.

Decline reason:

See below: 1. Previous Arbcom case, 2. Jpgordon's own checkuser findings. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checkuser findings and related Arbcom[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977. User:Jpgordon is a checkuser and his statement above must be based on his own data. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]