Cactus1549

---

---

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

---

 Question: How can I become administrator?

This user is happy with messages like {{smile}} and RfA notification being left here This message is posted here due to the fact that other users have posted a message saying the opposite

Welcome!

Hello, Cactus1549, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Troy McClure has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. DanielDeibler (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Not done I am not reading these boring things.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Stop your disruption at File:Evolution of Homer.jpg and File:UllmanMaggie.png. Thanks. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Speedy deletion of "Suck2"

A page you created, Suck2, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Nuβiατεch ^Talk 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Suck2, you will be blocked from editing. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at ATI Technologies, you will be blocked from editing. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User:ErikTheBikeMan. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

 —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:'( Sorry

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am sorry for hurting ErikTheBikeMan's feelings. I was trying to be funny. Just gimme one more chance

Decline reason:

You have slightly missed the point, in that your block is for vandalism rather than the effect on one editor. The block is short; please use the time to reflect on wikipedia policies. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

 Not doneI REFUSE TO READ SOME BORING PAGES

Conclusion

I want my account unblocked before midnight

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to KEWLopolis, you will be blocked from editing. Powergate92Talk 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DON'T BLOCK

Don't block me. Please, I made a problem with KEWLopolis, but it screwed up, I am trying to fix it.

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Sorry, but I hate you, you deserve this, MANYSCREWEDMANIES

You have been blocked for a period of 3 days from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. --GedUK  23:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not vandalize. I WAS TRYING TO HELP. Guess you just don't want me on Wikipedia. I am so sorry for myself to go.

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  07:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand what I did and I will not do it again.

Decline reason:

It isn't clear to me what you believe you did ("I understand what I did" doesn't demonstrate understanding), or what you would do differently in the future, but you are welcome to edit differently when this short block expires. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Message to you

I'm not an administrator, but I'd just like to let you know that blocked editors who continually ask to be unblocked and providing no new reasons for doing so can be considered to be abusing the block template and will have their blocks lengthened. right now, youre only blocked for three days, which really isnt much. I would encourage you to just wait out the block and come back when it's over. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, I CAN'T WAIT! I want to be unlock, i cannot wait 73 hours. Please, someone unblock me.

:-(

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I UNDERSTAND WHAT I DID, (VANDALIZE) BUT I AM NOT LIKE A NAZI, PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER CHANCE

Decline reason:

Calm down first, then we'll think about it. Anyway, you still haven't demonstrated that you really understand here. What will you do in the future to avoid this? You got blocked once before and pulled the same nonsense again; why should we trust you this time? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK I calmed down, I promise I won't hurt Wikipedia, and I will rethink about my actions. Ok?

Decline reason:

I think a day or two more will help your process of rethinking why your actions and Wikipedia's needs have been in conflict. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've like waited two days, and I deserve to be unblocked. I've calmed down.

Decline reason:

You still haven't given us any reason why you should be unblocked early. Wait out your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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 2009 VA 200 crash

A tag has been placed on 2009 VA 200 crash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Yola Logo.gif

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Yola Logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Max After Dark

A tag has been placed on Max After Dark, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MuffledThud (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Max After Dark

I find it difficult to understand why you would create a blank page as an article. Since you won't read "boring (guideline) pages," your edits amount to vandalism, as it is a (chronic) willful attempt to disrupt the community. Continuing to do this will result in being permanently blocked from editing on Wikipedia. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 10:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I put an Under Construction template on it. Give the article time

This is not how things are done. Since you won't bother reading the guidelines, I'm not going to waste time explaining it to you (again). --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me!

Hi, User:Cactus1549. I still have your talk page on my watchlist. Wikipedia has a lot of rules, and they are the basis on which the encyclopedia works. If you aren't willing to read or follow rules, then you probably won't like it here. Wikipedia has a lot of editors, who help each other make their work better. If you don't like working with other people, or having trouble graciously accepting correction from other people, then you probably won't like it here. I just wanted to let you know that I was concerned about the way you seem to be ignoring the rules and being rude to other users, because it would make me sad to block you for a longer period of time than your last block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please DO NOT recreate this article as a mainly blank page, or with a hangon tag. I would recommend that you create the article in your userspace first, and build it up there, then transfer to the mainspace. Let me know if you need help doing this. If you continue to add inappropriate pages again, you will be blocked, again. Thanks. --GedUK  11:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox in programming block articles

Please do not uses Infobox Television in programming block articles as you did in the KEWLopolis and ABC Kids (US) articles as they are not TV show articles. You should uses Infobox TV channel or Infobox Broadcasting network in programming block articles. Powergate92Talk 22:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cinemax

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 Cinemax, you will be blocked from editing. For all intents and purposes its still called Cinemax.The website is Cinemax.com. The After Dark actors say "only on Cinemax". The dirty joke animated segments say Dirty jokes on Cinemax. All TV providers call it the Cinemax package. I will revert all of your re-directs so stop wasting your time. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

There is a comment on your talk page relating to admin status; I appreciate that there is at present no application extant in your name for this. In case you had considered applying, it might be helpful if I were to tell you that no applicant with less than 2,000 edits has been appointed for several years, and you have less than 200. It is also necessary to demonstrate a broad base of experience in the admin-related areas of wikipedia - WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:UAA, WP:AN/I, WP:AfD, etc. It takes time, but you will get there if you seriously want to. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you REALLY think that vandalising my page is a suitable response to my comment? I WILL block you on your next vandal edit. Anywhere. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocks

{{adminhelp|How can non-admins block people? Or can only admins do that? If you say yes, then I WANT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR BADLY!}}

No, only admins can block people. In regards to adminship, I advise you to read the above comment from Anthony. ∗ \ / (⁂) 14:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia's policies on vandalism
• Policies on banned or discouraged content

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.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest

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) 14:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

FIRST, HOW LONG IS IT?

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was trying to help, not destroy. Nobody gets it. Geesh!!! I renamed Cinemax, to MAX due to the fact it is now called MAX. I changed the TV channels to TV shows because I think it was better. They WEREN't channels. Give me another chance please.

Decline reason:

You've been blocked twice before for similar behavior, and apparently it hasn't made an impression. I agree with Kralizec--you need awhile to rethink your behavior here. Blueboy96 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Cinemax is NOT called Max; please drop this line of argument, as it will only cause you long-term problems. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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).

Cactus1549 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A feeling is building up in me. That feeling is telling me to be unblocked. My engines have been cooled. So PLEASE unblock me. I AM SORRY for ALL THAT DAMAGE! I AM TRYING TO BE GOOD, NOT BAD. OK? PLEASE UNBLOCK ME. :'(

Decline reason:

I think we've heard enough out of this sockpuppet. —Travis^talk 15:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

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 for deletion of Template:Infobox Vegetarian

Template:Infobox Vegetarian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)