User talk:A:-)Brunuś

Why are you marking all of the redirects to be deleted? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them unnecessary? They are redirects that have existed for a long time. Please read

WP:R to better understand the reason for redirects. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• HTTP referer
• Referer spam
• Referer spoofing

Is there a reason these should not be restored to "referrer"? Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored these pages. If needed, please discuss on the talk page of one of the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Talk 19:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

At any rate, please join the discussion at Talk:HTTP referer#Reverted move. If you would like to reply to this message, please reply here (there is no need to notify me). However, any comments concerning the articles should be at the talk page I just linked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —Coroboy (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The song is variously spelt with both varients by the band, even in the same medium (consider the Achtung Baby liner notes; the tracklist on the back lists it as "Ultra Violet" while the lyrics page inside uses "Ultraviolet"). Both spellings can be considered acceptable. The current consensus on Wikipedia is for it to be written as "Ultraviolet", with the footnote explaining the difference in spelling. Please do not

Hello. This is a polite reminder to inform the creator if you nominate a page for deletion. I also don't agree with nominating a page for speedy deletion within a few minutes of creation. It also doesn't meet the deletion criteria given, as it has three entries. If you disagree, please take it to AfD, and inform the creator. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read this message? Yet you tagged the same page for speedy deletion again, with no edit summary and not informing the creator. You knew from my message, if not before, that you should inform the creator - I can only assume you didn't because you knew I would again ask for you to take it to AfD. The page has been restored - as per my message to you and my edit summary, all three entries are valid. You didn't give a reason for your nomination other than by using [Template:db-disambig], which is not designed for disambiguation pages with three entries. The page has been restored. In future, please don't just ignore people's messages, or disrespect their contributions by deleting pages without reason and without informing them. As before, if you have an issue, take it to

Could you please respond to my messages. Thank you, Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not know why this was nominated for speedy deletion. I was offline for a few days, and I come back to this? No reason given that make sense. It was NOT a "very short article providing no content to the reader."Marikafragen (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Hello A:-)Brunuś. It was a mistake and I meant to create Category:Canadian emigrants to Hong Kong as a category instead.The Elixir Of Life (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Phishing employees, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: neither g11 or a1 applies. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talamaur, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a hoax, e.g. [1]. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Greenpoint Crew, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page of the article. Appears that many of your speedy deletions have been declined. Please make sure that you compare versions of the articles before you recommend under the G4 tag. --

Now you are involved in edit waring. Please do not change the page without reading and commenting on the talk page. Any further changes will result in a notice to the admin notice board. --

talk) 18:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not reinstate declined speedy deletion requests, as you did at B-Thong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the speedy deletion rationale on the above referenced article. I have removed the A1, G2, and A7 criteria as none are applicable to this article. The article does not meet the A1 criteria, since it is clear that the article is a BLP; the article is clearly not a test, so does not meet the G2 criteria; and the article does not meet the A7 criteria, since the article states that the subject is a professional football player. In the end, I replaced the removed CSD rationale with the G3 (hoax), since the subject as a 13-year-old boy, is clearly not a professional football player. Please review the

Thanks for patrolling new pages, but another page you tagged, James Cox (journalist), is definitely not a test page. It's really important that you tag new pages carefully, so please proceed with caution. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global shipping network is not about a company, and it's a perfectly good article. Please read WP:Please do not bite the newcomers : your tagging is going to put off new editors. Please be more careful. Scopecreep (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well pile on to this and say that

Al moraheqat

is also clearly not a test page. A real test page is an article where you can see that the attempt by the creator is to see "Can I make an article here?"

Reading these remarks, I am very worried about your speedy deletion tagging. Please stop tagging until you are absolutely sure you are doing it right. Continued mistaken tagging is disruptive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've kept right on tagging in this way at Jitendra Nath Gohain, so I will have to take this to the administrators. Scopecreep (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding your misuse of speedy deletion. The thread is Over-zealous speedy deletion tagging.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Scopecreep (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder about

WP:POINT. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've also declined your A7 speedy deletion tag of Techscape. A7 is left intentionally specific and only applies to topics that are expressly mentioned in its criteria, but it does not include genre of music. I have, however, proposed it for deletion for notability. I've also deleted some of the other articles you nominated for speedy deletion.--Slon02 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously contacted you in reference to a speedy deletion tag that you placed on an article. You also have a discussion HERE at the Administrator's Notice Board that you have not yet responded to. Please do so in order to make sure that you keep your editing rights. There appear to be some good deletion recommendations that you have made; however, there are also many that appear to be disruptive. You seem to be a good editor, but need to get a handle on the different Speedy Deletion tags. Please contact me if I can in any way assist you. --

talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, A:-)Brunuś. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental click

Hey, just a note that this was an accidental click. Sorry about that! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem very talkative regarding this speedy delete issue at ANI [2] It would sincerely be in your best interest to come to this discussion and contribute, otherwise you limit us in how we handle this to using only the ugliest of methods: sanctions. Join us and help us understand so that we don't have to do something rash to get your attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You really need to start communicating, especially if you pull pranks like nominating the main page. That you've done some good work doesn't mean you can get away with stuff like that. Address the problem of the speedy deletion tagging at the noticeboard, or you might find yourself banned from CSDs altogether. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing (CSD). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

After you are unblocked, you need to come to ANI here and help us understand some of your actions, including this [3]. Any admin can unblock upon your pledge to come to the ANI and address the concerns, without any further permission from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:18, 23 May 2012 (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).

A:-)Brunuś (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

why do you think my DBs were disruptive?

Decline reason:

Answered below. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (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.

• In particular, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Main Page. The rest of the issues were covered at the ANIs that you refused to take part in, including here. Many of your speedy delete requests are fine, but you are producing a great many that are clearly outside the criteria and it has become disruptive, enough so that now a second ANI has been filed by another editor. That you have refused to reply in any way wasn't helpful, making me conclude that the only way to stop the disruption was by a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah… Seriously, I think that Main Page should be moved to Wikipedia: or Portal: namespace because it is not an article.

• Well, that's not going to happen; let's not waste any more words on it (you didn't propose a move, you proposed deletion--besides, it's ridiculous). There is an entire section on this talk page, "Your speedy deletion tagging", where you never responded to comments on a serious amount of incorrect CSD tags; asking "why do you think my DBs were disruptive?" is a bit silly considering that it was already answered. You need to address those issues, plain and simple. If you don't, and these problems happen again after your block expires, a next block will be longer. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A:-)Brunuś. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

]

CVUA Academy

"We see that you need a little more understanding of Counter-Vandalism before you're granted Rollback. The Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy exists to help users, like yourself, understand the way to identify and handle Vandalism through one-on-one instruction. Perhaps you'd like to ask a question of our instructors, or perhaps Enroll in the Academy".

. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article