EvanDanielCollett

Thank You!

	Helping The Wiki Community
	Thank You For Helping Me, And The Rest Of The Wiki Community Be Better Editors and Contributors! Hacker.Collett (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your new page patrolling

I'm afraid your patrolling of new pages is problematic and you are introducing too many errors. I am asking for help on Fenna Vanhoutte, but I am certain that a user of ten years' stature like Lugnuts would never deliberately start an article that did not meet the inclusion guidelines. Meanwhile, Craig Goldy is unquestionably not a CSD A7 as he has been associated with many well-regarded rock bands. I have also just closed Bert Lucas (footballer, born 1921) as "keep" per WP:SNOW as consensus is unanimous it does not meet the deletion criteria.

This is a formal warning to STOP new page patrol IMMEDIATELY and do something else, or I will be forced to block you for disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 15 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I Did Nothing Wrong Except Try To Learn To Edit and PROD, I Used My Best Judgement And Ritchie333 Gave Me A Warning And I Haven't Made Any Further Edits Except To MY Talk Page! Why Am I All Of A Sudden Blocked? Evan Daniel Collett 17:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - please only make one request at a time. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2016 (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.

You certainly did nothing wrong deliberately, but we never block users to punish them. A block serves the same purpose as putting a gate at the top of the stairs so a toddler doesn't fall down them, or a lock on a medicine cabinet so kids don't accidentally try the contents out. It is never to punish people. I admit that adding a comment to AfD (the action taken after I warned you above) is not particularly onerous on its own, but the language used there, the lack of understanding of policy (in this case, you don't file a vote against an AfD you start; I would expect another editor to strike this in due course), and having looked through your contributions, I'm afraid there has just been far too much disruption caused by your edits. In particular, I get the impression a lot of your recent edits have been retaliation against Lugnuts for filing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$uicideBoy$, which is a really bad idea. So we have to shut your access off while we review what to do with it. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've also blocked your Hacker.Collett account indefinitely. When your main account is blocked from editing Wikipedia, the correct response is to either explain why the block was in error, or admit that the block was correct and explain why you'll try to avoid making the same mistake in future; it is not to create a fresh account and pretend nothing has happened. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: can you see the account of User:LetsBeKings is also owned by this user? Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There aren't sufficient grounds for a checkuser. Other than a common interest, there isn't any behavioral evidence; LBK appears capable of basic communication without shouting, which isn't the case for the other accounts, and could perfectly well be a fan of the band who's seen the deletion notice on the page. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Check Again My Friend, I Had the hacker.collett account Before I Got Blocked, There Was No Reason To Block That Account And I Believe That Was Pure Over Kill, Also I Did Make A Few Mistakes That I Regret And Apologize For. I Was Upset That My Page Was Submitted For Deletion, But I Did Not Go On Page Patrol Out Of Retaliation, From Now On I Will Take Better Measures To Help Wikipedia, Like Placing Tags On Pages To Try And Help The Creator rather than Submitting Articles For Deletion Because I Don't Agree With Them. I Believe The Black Was A Necessary Check And I Sincerely Apologize For My Mistakes And Hope This Can Be Resolved Soon Evan Daniel Collett 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating secondary accounts, like the Hacker.Collett account you created is considered creating sock puppet account as per Wikipedia rules. Sock puppet accounts are not allowed and will be blocked when they are found. There was good reason to block that account Asm20 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I Would Also Like You To Check What Lugnuts said about me and my article Here, Is That Not Grounds For A Disciplinary Action? Evan Daniel Collett 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please restrict your use of upper case letters to the usual syntax places - Starts of sentences and proper names. You scattering these capitals through your comments makes them quite difficult to read coherently. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To Ritchie333, I feel it necessary to state I feel there is no viable reason to continue to block this user's account. I assure you I do not have any affiliation with him, but I feel it important to contribute to his disagreement. Though I am not certain of everything he has done, I sincerely hope you can reconsider his block. Thank you for your concern, however. If I missed something, please let me know. LetsBeKings (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a decision on my block? Am I permanently blocked from The Wiki Community? Have I been banished? Evan Daniel Collett 00:32, 16 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe I have learned from my mistakes and I will take personal preventative measures to improve wikipedia rather than disturb it. I sincerely apologize for my actions and truly hope this can be resolved soon. Evan Daniel Collett 00:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declining due to a lack of response. Please feel free to re-appeal with an answer to Optimist on the run's question below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:20, 20 November 2016 (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.

In order to convince us that you have learned from your mistakes, please explain in your own words what those mistakes were, and what specific actions you intend to take. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of $uicideBoy$

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 $uicideBoy$, 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. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

$uicideBoy$ Have Been Written About By Professional Writers, As I've Sourced More Than Once, Click Here → Article-Full Bio

And further to my comment above, please avoid heavy letter emphasis unless emphasis is really important; in the above post it is not.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Where Are All The Admins when you need them? Thank you. Evan Daniel Collett 03:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I am an admin. So is Ritchie333 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)