User talk:Mets1237

Welcome

  Hello everyone please feel free to leave a message. Mets1237 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mets1237! Thank you for your contributions. I am 78.26 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Murphy

Hello, I'm Taffe316. Your recent edit to the page Daniel Murphy (baseball) appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so I have removed it for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Taffe316 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Casey Simpson

The article Casey Simpson has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Casey Simpson

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 Casey Simpson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked for no reason

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am blocked for no reason. It said because my ip adress was used by Lmnodogsuphomie102 who I don't know. Mets1237 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Mets1237 Mets1237 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are autoblocked you should be receiving a message. In that message is a section that says "Rectifying an autoblock." You will have to follow the instructions there and wait for an administrator to take a look at it. --Majora (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Well i'm not sure how you know how many edits I have or why you want this "milestone" to be on this page, but here it is.--Yankees10 22:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mets1237. You have new messages at Muboshgu's talk page.
Message added 20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am 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).

Mets1237 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea what happened. It said I was abussing multiple accounts. I only have one account. The only account I have is this one honestly. One time I was autoblocked for one day and I put up with it. Now it said that the block has no expiration date. I like editing Wikipedia so please unblock me. Mets1237 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And as soon as you've sat out the autoblock you incurred by sharing an IP address with Lmnodogsuphomie102, you just happen to go to the talk page of the editor trolled by Lmnodogsuphomie102 and declare yourself his biggest fan. Sorry, I don't believe in that much coincidence. Jpgordon may want to comment on whether this is a CheckUser block, but the behavioural evidence is pretty strong on its own. Huon (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2016 (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.

Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please look at my unblock request. Mets1237 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Mets1237 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request will be reviewed shortly Tom29739 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock|reason=n Mets1237 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mets1237 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I really only have one account. I am not lying. If you really don't believe me then give me one more chance and if I do anything wrong, block me forever and never let me edit again. Please believe me I love editing Wikipedia. Please give me one more chance. Wikipedia is a wonderful place and I love being apart of it.

Decline reason:

I've confirmed that you've abused multiple accounts and have used them maliciously. Take for instance the recent contributions of Lmnodogsuphomie101. As such, this account will not be unblocked. Mike V • Talk 22:55, 10 January 2016 (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.

Mets1237 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock|reason=Please give me evidence that I used multiple accounts. If you really really think I used multiple accounts give me one more chance. If I prove you wrong block me forever. Mets1237 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

reason=Give me any evidence that I used multiple accounts. Please give me one more chance. If I vandalize at all block me forever.Mets1237 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please

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).

Mets1237 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Give me evidence that I used multiple accounts. I love editing Wikipedia and miss it. If I do anything wrong you can ban me forever.

Decline reason:

As has already been explained to you, we can easily connect your account to User:Lmnodogsuphomie101. There's no chance of your unblock being considered unless you address that connection.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:38, 11 January 2016 (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.

HeLp

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please respond to my unblock request. Mets1237 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will review your block when one is available to do so. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for 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).

Mets1237 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Good news I found out who Lmnodogsuphomie101 and Lmnodogsuphomie102 is. He is my roommate and I told him to never vandalize again. To make sure he doesn't vandalize. He swore that he wouldn't edit Wikipedia at all or I will make sure he moves out immediately. I hope that you can believe what I am saying because I don't like vandalism. I my self has never vandalized Wikipedia. My roommate started vandalizing Wikipedia. I have 3 roommates and I questioned them like crazy. One finally admitted it. He vandalized Wikipedia then I created this account for useful edits. Editing Wikipedia is great. I hate being banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a wonderful place and I promise you that I will never in my life vandalize Wikipedia. If you unblock me you can keep a close eye on my edits and if you find one tiny act of vandalism then you can block me forever. Wikipedia is a wonderful website and I really miss editing on it. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Per below. And removing talk page access now for wasting our time. only (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (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.

That's some impressive sleuthing. However, the plot thickens: it turns out that someone already wrote this story a long, long, time ago. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]