User talk:Ratinator

Welcome!

Hello, Ratinator, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Lewice, Opole Voivodeship worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Removing templates

Talk:Dope Wars is a talk page of a redirected page, hence my removal of the assessment banners so that Dope Wars (a redirect) no longer shows up in e.g. Category:Stub-Class video game articles. If you have a more specific concern, feel free to post it on my talk page. Thanks. Nifboy (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to article names

Woohoo (song) ---> Woohoo (Song) was not necessary, as were your other edits to names of articles. Your interpretation of grammar falls under WP:OR.

Please read: Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles.5BR.5D to understand Wikipedia's policy on article names. Candyo32 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the page back to Woohoo (song). The part in brackets (song) is called a DAB --> its the disambiguation. Grammer is not applicable to DAB because the DAB is not part of the song's name. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

{{helpme}} how do I use twinkle

You can enable 'twinkle' by ticking the option in "my preferences", "gadgets" but please read the page Wikipedia:Twinkle carefully - like any tool, it is powerful, and easy to make mistakes. You are responsible for all edits you make, whether using a gadget or not.
When enabled, you will see more tabs at the top of the screen, depending on the page you are on. For example, on an article page you will see the 'CSD' tab, where you can quickly nominate a page for speedy deletion.
Please carefully read the documentation before using it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Hi, you don't really need to revert my blanking of one of my own user pages! Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fetchcomms worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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) 11:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3)

This is the standard naming of season articles. See the Feature Article Smallville (season 1) for example and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Season_articles. BOVINEBOY2008 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former user name

I heard you lost your password to your original user name. You should put a link to the old name on your new name. Emptyviewers (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing for rollback rights

Greetings! I see you made another attempt to canvass for rollback rights, this time at User talk:Antandrus. Please note that it's not exactly helping your cause to apologize for something and then do it again.

Regarding rollback rights, I do not think you are a candidate for them at this time. The key reason I cite is that you made a questionable revert, gave an unwarranted warning, and refused to apologize for it or rescind the warning.

However, I do think you've been doing some good work, particularly with articles for creation. I suggest, as Antandrus did, that you wait a few weeks, and then take your request to WP:Requests for permissions. Please do not contact another administrator directly, as that would be a clear attempt to canvass (forum shop) for the permission.

Also, a note: it's very easy to check your user talk history to see what messages and warnings you've received. You're within your rights to delete (though archiving is preferred) the messages. However, deleting a comment about something and then doing it again certainly makes it look like you're attempting to conceal the prior comments/warnings/denial of permissions.

That said, I say to keep doing the good work you're doing with articles for creation; undo vandalism when you see it and leave warnings; and undo good-faith edits that are problematic and make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why. With a good track record for a couple of weeks, I'll be willing to support your request for rollback. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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) 18:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Wikipedia:TROUT

Thank you for uploading File:New Zealand North Island.png. 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 created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

more appropriate.

User:C.Fred

I don't know why you trout slapped C.Fred. He did nothing wrong. About applying, don't waste your time applying for anything now. Nobody will even consider giving you rights after what you did today. You will have to wait for awhile for this to be forgotten before reapplying for anything, JDDJS (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

I think for now you should just stick with WikiProject Articles for creation. You are good at it. You are not going to get any rights by asking multiple people. If you just stick with what you are good and wait to you do not have anyone angry with you, you will get rights. Trust me, it happened with me but thats another story. JDDJS (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O and trout slapping users without any reason is not a good way to get people to like you. You might want to delete that. JDDJS (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Actually, you aren't being very clear or reviewing thoroughly in Articles for creation. Several users are trying to clean up after you right now, so you need to go slowly and actually help fix some of the potential articles. —fetch·comms 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You know, Wikipedia is funny sometimes. I saw your aborted attempt at an RFA this morning, and had perused your talkpage and saw that you had been warned for violating WP:CANVASS. Then, an hour later, you canvassed me for me some reason. And now I've blocked you for two days to give you some time to actually read up on that policy so you can stop violating it. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|RFA attempt was not me, the account was accessed unfairly and I was simply requesting that you read my explanation of why I think I have proven myself worthy of understanding Wikipedia's guides.}}

I'm sorry, are you saying you didn't make these edits: [1][2][3]? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, I did not make those edits. Ratinator·Talk 18:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me. My sister / brother / friend / roommate / pet used my computer and pretended to be me. I won't let this happen again.

is not a valid excuse. HalfShadow 18:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that someone has bruted my password and accessed my account. I did look for some guides by searching the internet and ended up on some funny sites. Ratinator·Talk 18:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No please I beg don't do that! I will serve the two days then it doesn't bother me just don't make it forever! Ratinator·Talk 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change the block settings so I can create a new account and start afresh? I am asking because the guide says I should make a new account with a secure password. Ratinator·Talk 19:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you give a really,really convincing explanation as to how your brother or whoever were able to access your account? I, for one, would take a lot of convincing.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, if you do see a new account from this IP doing this again, you have every reason to block it forever if you so wish, just one more chance with a new account. I have already ruined the reputation of getting anywhere with this one, as the block log has now got something in it plus I have got loads of warnings. I really would not object if you blocked my new account for canvassing because i assure you I would NEVER EVER do it again. EVER Ratinator·Talk 19:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that honesty and a willingness to be accountable for one's own actions is a good thing. Maybe try that at some point instead of obfuscation and wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he does have the word 'rat' in his name. Just sayin'... Half

Shadow 19:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC) That name was chosen because in September 2006, I had pet rats and I like to name my account after them ok? Nothing to do with the thing above. I didn't quite understand that but if you do see this IP with a different account canvass repeatedly again, block it, ban it destroy it whatever you have to do. Just let me have ONE more chance. :( Ratinator·Talk 19:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be doing that, but you are welcome to try posting a new unblock requests that directly addresses the reasons for your block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Block time too much time to reflect on mistakes, please let me make another account and if that account canvasses you can incinerate it

Decline reason:

I do not know how to make it plainer. A compromised account cannot be unblocked. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:45, 11 July 2010 (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.

Please I'm crying my eyes out Ratinator·Talk 19:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't do the check. I am not sure if that was the case. However please please give me one more chance! The person who posted about the little brother thing might be correct, that probably is the case but still I know that's not a good enough excuse and that I have no proof that I can give. I have said 382403957694867 times I am really really really sorry for what I did please let me create a new account! Ratinator·Talk 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not sure if you really made those edits or not? How can that be? Are you positive you don't have something else to say about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if i say the truth i'm scared that you will never unblock me Ratinator·Talk 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth: Asked people for rollback rights because I thought I was doing well with them and thought other users were not happy I had them and tried to bring me down. So that's the truth really it is and I really really want one just one more chance find it in your heart to unblock. Please please!!!!! Ratinator·Talk 19:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to be an admin then I remembered the problems I had with this issue then I deleted it and the request didn't work anyway. please reply Ratinator·Talk 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Please I beg reply!!! Please!!! I'm literally begging you!!![reply]

You claim the account was somewhat compromised - therefore we can only direct you to WP:GOTHACKED, and follow the advice there to create a new account with a strong password. This account has only a very small number of contributions (223 - when I just looked), so it's not a great loss. Note that you seem to be trying to run before you can walk - you need many more than 223 edits to get rollback, and most RfAs will die under about 5000 edits (and most readers will not count automated edits - i.e made with Twinkle and Huggle - at an RfA! - believe me, I've been there...).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me make a new account then because it wont let me! Block this account I don't car just let me make a new one! Ratinator·Talk 20:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC) ock.}}[reply]

Look, Ratinator. If you want Beeblebrox or any other admin to even consider unblocking you (by the way, I am not an admin, so don't ask me), you need to spell it out and really tell the truth this time: Were these edits [5][6][7] made by you? Yes or no? Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes Ratinator·Talk 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, finally, some honesty. Was that so hard? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Apologized for mistakes, please unblock account as the issue has been resolved from my point of view and I read the canvassing guide sixteen times

Decline reason:

As you have been told here, on my talk page, and probably elsewhere, you need to have a lot more patience than you have exhibited so far. Let this block run its course and prove to us that you are willing to slow down and learn the right way to do things here. Okay? —DoRD (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2010 (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.

original block restored

Since you have admitted to making the edits you had previously claimed were made by someone else, I have restored the original 48 hour block. Hopefully it is now clear to you that lying and game-playing are not acceptable. As Ron mentioned above, it would be a good idea for you to slow down and not be in so much of a hurry to attain status here. This isn't a MMPORG, it's an encyclopedia. It's not about getting trophies or status. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked for sockpuppetry

For one week. My patience with you is at an end. I extended good faith and took you at your word and you returned the favor by evading the block. All you accomplished by that is to get both your accounts blocked. Do it again and you can expect to be indefinitely blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a really dumb thing to do. You may get away with it for a little while, but it'll catch up with you sooner or later. Listen, this is simply a website, and there's nothing so important here that you must edit it right now. WP isn't going anywhere. It'll still be here after the block expires, and there are probably better things for someone your age to be doing than sitting indoors pecking on your computer anyway. Please follow the advice that Beeblebrox has left you above and in his "subtle" message below. Okay? —DoRD (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fish dinner

For digging yourself into an ever deeper hole when your block was almost expired, I hereby award you this rare triple trout with bracketing minnows.

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Now please, don't evade your block again. The block is on you the person, under any identity. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

When your current block expires I strongly suggest that you enter the adopt a user program. You seem to be having a lot of trouble comprehending our policies and guidelines here, and a mentor will make things easier for everyone, especially you. Now please, please accept the block and do not evade it again before it expires, and you'll be welcomed back when the week is up. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find out sock puppets? Is it from the IP? Ratinator·Talk 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways of detecting sockpuppets. The few admins that have CheckUser authority are able to see the IP address that a user is editing from, and the usernames that have edited from a particular IP address, but the use of the CheckUser tool is highly regulated. The most common method of detecting sockpuppetry, however, is by comparing the edits of two or more users. Your sockpuppet, to put it bluntly, was very obvious. Some very sophisticated and knowledgeable socks are able to evade detection for a surprisingly long time, but most sockpuppets are blocked very quickly. —DoRD (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

banned

Seeing as no one has objected, you may now consider yourself banned from Wikipedia. I feel like this appeal is a waste of time given how many times I tried in good faith to point you in the right direction, but I would remind you once again that if you ever want to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again you will need to refrain entirely from editing here for an extended period of time.

Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]