User talk:Texcarson

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).

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

Request reason:

i suspended the legal action, there won't be anything to fear

Decline reason:

None of us are afraid of your legal action, but since you vandalized a page and asked for all edits you've made to be removed, I'm not sure why you would want an active account. It doesn't sound as if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:12, 4 July 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm trying once again to get unblocked. When i find ideas i will add pages, images and links. Also read the above

Decline reason:

Generally, when somebody replaces the content of our policy against legal threats with a legal threat, that mean they're done with Wikipedia and have no intent to continue contributing constructively. If you're to persuade an admin that unblocking you isn't a risk, you're going to have to work considerably harder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 13 December 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

But i changed my mind! No threats and no complaints, they're not useful anyway. So what's the risk for you? I have 2000 good edits according to the counter, and i said i want to link pages and images when needed. I'm still working at commons as well. Texcarson (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The risk for us is that we have no idea what prompted this apparently sudden turn into disruptive editing in the first place, and your requests here are not convincing that we won't see it again. "When i find ideas i will add pages, images and links" is very vague and doesn't actually tell us what edits you intend to make. Asking us what the risk to us isn't helpful either; that's for you to tell us, and 2000 edits does not explain why you came back after several months to make a clearly disruptive edit and ask for the deletion of your userpages. I'm very curious in that, as from what I can see it looks like your account was compromised. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:23, 13 December 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

But Hersfold, it's just that the computer kind of flipped out back then while i was logged using two browser windows at the same time, and what i jokingly typed in the box was accidentally saved creating the bad edit, it was a mistake... i'm not a frequent visitor here, i just add links and image, but i still had to say that the "accidental threat" was retracted.

Decline reason:

That explanation might be plausible if your next edit - I mean right away edit - was reverting yourself with the edit summary "Whoops". Even then, you may have been blocked. But you've offered three different versions of what happened and why, and none of them are convincing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:51, 13 December 2010 (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.

You said that you had changed your mind- but now you say that you never meant it at all. Changing your story doesn't give me more faith. I suspect the real Texcarson is probably long gone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be frequent, but you have had 2 blocks under your first user name, followed by 4 blocks as User:Texcarson - hardly the record of a occasional editor. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point- maybe this is the real Texcarson after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Yes it's me, so what's the problem? It's really me! I mean what the hell are you saying? I have over 9000 good edits at itwiki}}

I guess I'm saying that either Texcarson's account has been taken over by a vandal, in which case it should not be unblocked, or that Texcarson has vandalized the encyclopedia after two previous blocks for vandalism, in which case he should not be unblocked. I'm not really seeing the benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking this account either way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes it's me, so what's the problem? It's really me! I mean what the hell are you saying? I have over 9000 good edits at itwiki

Decline reason:

What I'm saying is that you've been making the same request, more or less, to get it declined four times by as many different admins. So, I think it's time to close this show because you're just wasting our time, and yours. Talk page access revoked. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2010 (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.

Nomination of Rafael Ferrer (actor) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A loose necktie (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Zagor.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]