Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 3 November 2009

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TDA Aftermath

I have gone ahead and closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TDA Aftermath as what is technically a speedy keep, since nobody favors deleting TDA Aftermath. Hopefully, anything useful from the page has already been salvaged and merged in. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show

Given that it's been through a full AfD you'll need to take this to WP:Deletion review - and you may want to check out civility too. Skier Dude (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The absence of reliable sources is also problematic. If there were sources to back up the release of the movie, I would back creation of a new article and, were it speedy deleted, vote to overturn in a deletion review. However, the last article created had no reliable sources listed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide sources that the film exists and I'll happily stop suggesting it for speedy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should 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) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

FYI - please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ed.2C_Edd.2C_n.27_Eddy.27s_Big_Picture_Show. If you can provide sources to show that the program exists, I see no reason to speedy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It was speedied because it's already been deleted at AfD and is thus a WP:CSD#G4 speedy. To restore it, the user will need to go to deletion review. In addition, edit-warring and then messing with the WP:ANI thread is really not a good idea. Black Kite 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please see it. Don't remove the section. It will be archived automatically 24 hours after the last comment left in the section. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing false about the warning you removed

Please stop. Your edit to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review is not helpful or appropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

um wow pay attention inteased of just reverting anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdinoahfan (talk • contribs)

I am paying attention. Your edit was not appropriate. Your upset about your article being deleted. That's fine. Calling people stupid is not acceptable, and ignoring that, the edit was completely out of place. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in settling down, I'd be willing to try to help you format your request at deletion review. What you are doing now will not get you any closer to seeing the article restored. --Onorem♠Dil 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Please also be aware that you may be in breach of the WP:3RR 3 revert rule. Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

it says an exception is revrting VANDALISM.. which i am doing

November 2009

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Martin451 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - last warning. You are causing disruption. If you wish to appeal the deletion of the article at deletion review, then go to WP:DRV, READ this section and edit properly. If you disrupt any more pages you will be blocked. Black Kite 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=i was rveerting vandalism! i was trying to report it then i got unfairly blocked! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=i was rveerting vandalism! i was trying to report it then i got unfairly blocked! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=i was rveerting vandalism! i was trying to report it then i got unfairly blocked! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

No, you were re-adding vandalism that multiple other editors had removed. You were also edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BULL! that was NOT vandalism! iw as told to take it there and idk why but it looks like part of it got cropped off and then i guess those editors hate the show so they wanted to sotp me by vandalizing the page and i was trying to stop them!!!

This edit was committing vandalism, not removal of vandalism. At no time, in any of your edits on the DRV page, did you follow the directions for opening a case. As a result, your edits were deemed to be disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WELL SORRY FOR NOT BEING A FUCKING WIKIPEDIA EXPERT HOW ABOUT YOU CUNTS ACTUALLY HELP ME INSTEAD OF JUST VANDALISING

• Requests for unblock