User talk:Netpassport89

Speedy deletion of Robert Bake (Aninote)

A tag has been placed on Robert Bake (Aninote) 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please do not add material to Wikipedia that has already been deleted previously.R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Robert Bake (Aninote)

I have nominated Robert Bake (Aninote), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bake (Aninote). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Bake_(Aninote), you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Do not revert your statements after you know you have been reported. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the deletion because, in the previous note, "[it] will not be tolerated". I am sorry that you did not wish it to be deleted. Netpassport89 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This was a personal attack. I have blocked you briefly. Please learn civility. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netpassport89, you will be blocked from editing. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an email address where I may email you my concerns, please. Netpassport89 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your link is to a page that does not exist. Netpassport89 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (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).

Netpassport89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Response to aggressive deletions. Aninote itself is not notable, but things like justgotowned.com and youaremyfriend.com are creations of Robert Blake that are notable. A typo was made, but I don't have access to redirect it.

Decline reason:

You appear, from your contributions so far, to have joined Wikipedia solely for the purpose of promoting one Robert Blake, a person whose notability is unclear. You were repeatedly warned to stop creating articles about him, because Wikipedia articles must be about subjects which are clearly notable and because Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion or advertising. Unfortunately, you ignored the warnings, and so the only way we had to get you to stop was to block you. Your request indicates that, if you were not blocked, you would still be actively promoting Mr. Blake, so the block is still needed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 4 April 2009 (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.

Speedy deletion of Robert Bake (Aninote)

A tag has been placed on Robert Bake (Aninote) 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User_talk:R3ap3R.inc, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you from editing because I don't think you quite get what Wikipedia is for. Your edits to our encyclopedia are unconstructive, and others are having to clean up after you.

I'm going to leave you a welcome message here. Please please read the links. If you come back after the block and haven't read and heeded the links, the next block you get may well be permanent. For more information on this, see

If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Please bear in mind that any admin reviewing this block may or may not unblock or extend this block at their discretion.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); — Kralizec! (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Jet Set Zero, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Previous Works"

A tag has been placed on "Previous Works" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article is dependent on a deleted page or nonexistent, namely Aninote

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User:R3ap3r.inc. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I noticed you threw a whole lot of "Last Warnings" at this user, and looking at your history you two have a bit of a feud going on. C'mon man, knock it off. There is no need to act like that in Wikipedia, leave the nonsense on the recess field and try to be constructive. Nicktfx (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User_talk:R3ap3R.inc, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

Since you seem to have no interest in contributing to Wikipedia outside of harassing one editor, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To any other editor/admin reviewing this: I fully support this block. This user has, without fail, attacked my main page / talk page consistently within 12 hours of the previous block being removed. This "anger" appears to stem from the user's inability to cope with their article on a non-notable individual being deleted twice following my deletion nominations. Also note that the unblock tag below me is the second one referring to the same ban, and this is the user's third block in less than two weeks. Besides placing multiple "last warning" tags on my talk page not once, not twice, but four times today (also violating 3RR), the user also seeks out multiple admins in an attempt to get one admin to override the other. For the record, I work hard on pages that I feel have merit and even contest AfD's when appropriate... for example: Susan Boyle R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R3ap3R.inc was the second contributor to Susan Boyle. I hardly find that to be without self-interests at heart. He was successful with contesting an AfD. I was not. That is the difference. Evidently being a senior editor allows you to get away with whatever you want to. I am disgusted that administrators turn a blind-eye to harassment towards me from R3ap3R.inc. It's really sad when the Five-Pillars are not followed by two parties and only one party is punished. I'm not saying what I did was right, but don't just block me and let others get away with the same types of things. It's favoritism and is at its very essence against Wikipedia's view on neutrality. I was wrong to stalk this user for shooting down my ideas, but I don't think it's much better to rub my face in its deletion nor appropriate to harass me outside of Wikipedia. Netpassport89 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AfD of Susan Boyle was reviewed by 36 editors and the closing vote was WP:SNOW @ 31 for keep and only 5 for delete. The subject is obviously notable; as for self-interest, what interest do I have with a 46 yo woman from Scotland?? And, if you choose to initiate contact outside of Wikipedia, both my actions and yours are not under the scrutiny/protection of Wikipedia :/ R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize and put this behind us. They have not been constructive, but I felt singled-out when my first Wikipedia article was deleted- before I had put more than a stub in it. I considered the person notable, and evidently the person wasn't notable enough. And then warnings and red hands started showing up on my talk page for, what I considered, defending my position. I became petty, and I am sincerely sorry for letting it get to me and letting it get out of hand. I did have a few positive contributions to Wikipedia, and I would like to continue to do so. From now on I will try not to let revisions to my edits get to me, and I will try to WP:assume good faith with said revisions. I let the wikistress get to me. I am sorry, R3ap3r.inc, and I apologize. Netpassport89 06:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read this apology, R3ap3R? Netpassport89 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2009 (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).

Netpassport89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Check my contribution history. I've been helpful with multiple changes. If you choose not to acknowledge that, then I question your impartiality. Warning users for not assuming good faith and for advertising personal for-profit sites is NOT grounds for a block. You should check out User:R3ap3R.inc's page and talk page to see that this user is doing that. If you're out to deter individuals from joining the Wiki community, then you and R3ap3R.inc are doing a fine job of it. Netpassport89 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your actions constituted harassment, or at a minimum disruption to make a point. Having a single link on one's own user page to one's own website is acceptable. Similarly, removing warnings from one's own talk page is acceptable. You are also misusing automated tools to mark non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Comments like this are blatant trolling. I don't see any reason why you should be unblocked considering all the different sorts of disruption you've done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (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.

Are you going to take a look at his harassment to me? NOTE:User:R3ap3R.inc deleted this link and masked it as "malformed URL" to hide his actions. Netpassport89 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)(Netpassport89 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not contest this block. This was copied and pasted from the original contestation.

Note: I deleted the link as a malformed URL because it was malformed. There was a period at the end of the URL. Also, that image is shopped or altered & my ebay logs can prove it; keep trying to drag my name through the mud, and I'll show what happens when you piss of Anonymous. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was editted to remove my legal name from the image. The rest was unaltered from that on the screen. I will be glad to forward the message to any administrators. Note: R3ap3R.inc has threatened me. Please ban this individual, because I believe direct threats are not allowed in Wikipedia

Threat? I simply implied that you would piss of a group of people whose actions would be out of my hands. And, at worse, I would get a warning not a direct ban (like you got the first time you attacked me) R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} R3ap3r.inc has continues to harass me off-wikipedia

Thank you so much for your assistance, chzz. Netpassport89 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete account

If possible, I'd like to delete my account entirely. I don't want to contest the block, but simply remove my account.