User talk:KrampusCWelcome! Hello, KrampusC, 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:
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 and then place
Re thanks?Wikipedia is a normal place for me, but first days are always though. Some people have it on the first day, others have it later. So, what stuff have you edited in the past and under which account? So far I see you as a new editor who have some troubles getting into a routine (that's why I provided those links).--Mishae (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been told it is okay to delete things from my talk pageI don't appreciate threats, so if anyone threatens me or otherwise demonstrates bad behaviour on this talk page I will simply delete it and not respond to it. Since that is apparently okay to do it (as it should be) then I will. KrampusC (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, KrampusC. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Biblioworm 16:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Thanks for your help
February 2018You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2018 (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).
KrampusC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Didn't evade any blocks. Not a sockpuppet. This was done presumably because I opened up a legitimate Request for Arbitration against NeilN. Please undo. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrampusC (talk • contribs) Decline reason: Mister Sneeze A Lot declared that this was an abandoned account of theirs. MSAL is still blocked; therefore this is block evasion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (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. I'm not going to review this unblock request, but I've briefly read through your history and can offer the following advice. You seem to think everyone on the project is out to get you, yet when you get into conflict with other people, you have been arrogant and rude towards them (eg: [1]) - not to mention your last mainspace contributions (as Mister Sneeze A Lot) were to restore a claim on Twitter that is believed to have led to a pornographic model's suicide, which is not only insensitive and crass, but against the biographies of living persons policy (which doesn't stop the minute a subject dies). It is therefore hardly surprising to see you blocked. While I have banged heads with NeilN on a number of occasions myself, I am not so pig-headed to think he offers a net-negative contribution to the project and would not support a desysopping. If he really was that problematic an administrator, don't you think there would be a queue of complaints from many other people on the project? When an administrator genuinely steps over the mark and brings serious disruption into the project, they do get desysopped without so much of a how d'ya do. Just because you don't like NeilN, doesn't mean everyone else has to share your views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 5 February 2018 (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).
KrampusC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Didn't evade any blocks. Not a sockpuppet. I don't see why it matters if someone is pretending to be me. This account has had sockpuppet checks against it and is proven not to be a sockpuppet. Please check facts. Thanks. KrampusC (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Decline reason: Declined per CU info below, talk page access removed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2018 (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.
|