User talk:Squeakmore

]

Proposed deletion of IPod Touch (6th generation)

The article IPod Touch (6th generation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Product doesn't exist yet and is merely a rumor (with no citations). Plenty of time to create an article if and when such a product is announced.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

]

Proposed deletion of Dolphin Tale 3

The article Dolphin Tale 3 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFF

as there is no evidence it has begun principal photography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dolphin Tale 3 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolphin Tale 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

• I'm blocking you because ultimately you have a long, long history of creating articles based on rumors and speculation, as well as adding in rumors and speculation to various articles in instances where the rumors weren't covered enough to warrant being added. You've been warned about this enough to where you should know that things like this aren't considered appropriate for Wikipedia, as it is not a place to host various rumors and speculations about franchises, products, and the like. Even if there weren't warnings about this on your page, the fact that just about every article you've tried to create has been deleted due to it being based on rumors/speculation should have alerted you to the fact that it was time to stop creating things like this. I don't see where you've ever taken any of that into consideration, so this block is permanent.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 2 January 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. --

^"talk" 21:27, 2 January 2015 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry that i made a some pages that dose not exist yet but i have been hearing some people that they will release ipod touch 6 and there has been talks about Dolphin Tale 3. And there also have been talks about Frozen 2 so again i am sorry that i made some pages that dose not exist yet again i am really sorry i will not make anymore pages that product or film that dose not exist. I understand that i will not do it again. I will only make pages that a product or a film that will be release and again i am truly sorry i completely understand that i will not do it again.

Decline reason:

Could you explain why you didn't realise what you were doing was wrong? PhilKnight (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2015 (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.

• I've formatted your unblock request properly for you - as it shows in the block message, you needed "reason=" in there to make your explanation appear inside the unblock box. Squinge (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"reason=" I will not make any pages that product or film that dose not exist yet i am sorry im understand that it will not ever going to happen again.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Squeakmore (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To be honest, I see where you've been warned several times about this and I can't see where you paid any attention to them in the slightest. I have a hard time believing that you'd suddenly stop now that you've been blocked. You've been warned multiple times and multiple pages have been deleted- why didn't you stop doing this back then? It shouldn't take a block to get you to stop.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 6 January 2015 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Look, i been trying to tell you people that i keep saying that i am very sorry that i made pages that dose not exist yet can you please unblock me and again i am very sorry. With that said are you going to unblock me or not @ Tokyogirl79 i being serious about this now. I like making pages i will not make a page that dose not exist i am just keep repeating my self and i am sorry that i am keep repeating my self. I just like making pages i made some pages that dose exist and i willl not make anymore pages that dose not exist at all so really please unblock med ok so listen unblock me so i can make pages again i am really missing doing i was having fun creating pages that i made so ya. Again i am very sorry that i made some pages that dose not exist i WILL NOT DO IT EVER AGAIN !!!!.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I'm not going to unblock you. Like I said, you've been doing this for about a year now and you received multiple notifications that what you were doing was against Wikipedia policy... and you ignored them completely and kept doing everything that you were being told was against policy. I left you one message back in April and you ignored that as well. Your entire usertalk is full of people giving you notices that edits you made violated policy and you ignored them and kept doing the exact same thing. I have no reason to believe that you will now follow policy now that you've been officially blocked. Much of your editing revolved around adding in rumors, hearsay, and other things that would be considered

(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 7 January 2015 (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.

I have to say as a casual observer--you seem to be having extraordinary difficulty formatting an unblock request per the simple instructions above in the big blue box. Other editors (Squinge, in particular) have had to format your responses so that they reach the intended admins. What do you propose to contribute if unblocked, if you have trouble following basic directions? I'm also concerned about your grammar deficiencies. If you speak another language as your primary language, you should probably consider editing at that language's Wikipedia instead of here per

WP:CIR#Some common types. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Plus to further hammer this home Squeakmore, you have created 10 pages since you've been here and six were deleted for various different reasons like notability, being too soon for an entry, and for being based on various rumors. 05:20, 7 January 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Can i really have my account back up really please i am sad that i cant make pages anymore because you guys blocked me and i keep saying that it will neveer ever going to happen ever again i promises i did not mean to create rumors it will never happen again. Squeakmore (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See the other unblock request, below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (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.

You are still not properly formatting your request so it will be correctly considered. The text you put should be placed where it says "your reason here". You are saying you won't do "it" again, but you also still are not addressing the admin's question as to what you will do if you are unblocked. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus I really am not comfortable with the idea of this editor continuing to edit on Wikipedia, given that the bulk of their edits (as described above) were what caused them to get blocked in the first place. Until now they haven't responded to anyone warning them about these actions and they've been doing this for at least a year now. I can't see where they'll make any positive edits to Wikipedia even if they were blocked, since the majority of their pages they've created were deleted for various crystal ball reasons and a large majority of their edits otherwise had been reverted for the same reason. That they've kept reposting the unblock template with the claims that they'll "never do it again, promise" doesn't really give me any confidence that they've learned anything and if nobody has an issue with it, I'm tempted to just block them from editing their userpage. I think that regardless of how many times they're declined they'll keep reposting in the hopes of getting an admin that would unblock them. If by some chance this did happen (that they were unblocked) I think that it's only a matter of time before they're re-blocked for the same reasons because clearly they did not take any of this to heart in the nearly full year that they were editing on Wikipedia and continued to make the same type of policy violating edits despite several clear signs/warnings that this was not kosher.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tokyogirl79, you should really stop declining unblock requests of a user whom you blocked yourself. Nevertheless, my question to Squeakmore: could you explain information from what kind of sources is considered appropriate for Wikipedia, and why? Max Semenik (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• I won't do it again, but I do have to note that this is the first time anyone has told me that I couldn't do this. (I don't mean to sound like I'm being petulant, just that this is the first time someone's said anything about it.) I would also like for you to get them to specifically state why they were blocked, why their actions were wrong, and to ask them why they didn't stop after multiple signs that these pages violated one guideline or another. I'm not trying to dog them, just that I don't see where they've taken anything to heart in the past or where they've suddenly learned their lesson now that they've been blocked.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While I have doubts about this user's

WP:CRYSTALBALL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• I believe that there may be an issue
  with maturity and that Squeakmore might possibly wish to consider waiting a few years before continuing to edit. However, an appropriate reply to MaxSem's question should be sufficient for an unblock. Further disruptive editing of any kind would probably result in a new block without warning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am very sorry what i said to you i am truly sorry may i please have my account please. I never should done it in the first place because those products or films that dose not exist yet again i am truly sorry about making the pages. Would you please give me a second chance. Squeakmore (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have gone out of my way to give you every chance I can to show that you understand the reasons why you were blocked, and that you will not make the same mistake again. Other administrators have been willing to give you a second chance to, if you could show that you understood. However, you haven't shown that understanding, and you have not answered questions that Max Semenik and I asked. I do understand what you meant when you wrote " i am sad that i cant make pages anymore", but I'm afraid that editors who don't understand what the problems are with their editing is likely to cause problems, even if they mean well. I suggest that you take a long break from Wikipedia (at lest six months, and really I think a couple of years might be better). After that, maybe you will have a better understanding. I have known editors who have had problems change a lot in that much time, so maybe you will. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (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.

Hey, I'm all for second chances, and you don't even need to apologise - to me, the best apologise is to prove that you understand how not to make the same mistake again, and the best way to do that is to answer my question which you haven't done yet. Max Semenik (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Semenik Would you please give me some examples please so i can know what to say thanks. I understand that i will never make mistake again.

You don't need to keep making unblock requests; your recent request was put on hold. If you wish to make further comments, simply type them. I also don't think MaxSem will give you the answer that is being looked for. Simply answer his question as he requests; if you cannot give an answer, I suggest you review some Wikipedia guidelines before you give an answer. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- And if you can't give an answer to MaxSem, or don't understand what he wants, then you really are not ready to be collaborating on Wikipedia at all. If you can't/won't read the advice and comments of other admins , and continue refuse to read the instructions for making unblock requests, I or another admin will revoke your access to your talk page. Sorry, Squeakmore, but we really now have to bring this to a conclusion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of asking the question is to see whether you understand well enough to answer the question. If Max (or anyone else) told you what to say, then it wouldn't show us whether you understand or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 14:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

(Squeakmore, don't post a new unblock request every time you want to answer someone's question here. You have an unblock request on hold and you don't need to keep making new ones. Just post your reply below the latest comments in plain text. Squinge (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

MaxSem "reason=" I know that i am sad that i cant make anymore pages anymore because i know it was wrong that i was doing and i was not supposed to do it. The reason why that it is wrong to create a page for a film or product that dose not exist yet i don't know why i did that. So for the pages that i made i am really sorry that i created those pages. I just wish i could start over again. Can i please start over again?

You still haven't answered MaxSem's question, which is: "could you explain information from what kind of sources is considered appropriate for Wikipedia, and why?" The issue is not just the fact that you created pages for things that "don't exist yet", but the fact you did so without appropriate sources. You need to answer that question. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxSem "reason=" I did not mean to create the pages the last page that i created witch dose not exist yet was Dolphin Tale 3. The reason why i created Dolphin Tale 3 page is because i love the first two Dolphin Tale movies so thats why i created Dolphin Tale 3 page. And the other pages that i created was Frozen 2 and i know it dose not exist yet because Disney has not made the movie yet so thats why i created Frozen 2 page. I also created Ipod touch 6th generation page because i also really like ipod touches but the 6th generation dose not exist yet but apple might release the Ipod Touch 6th generation in March alongside is the Apple Watch. So there you have i kind of explain why i made these mistakes. And if i created a page and someone else all created that page i could of created a different page or i can edit the page.

Squeakmore, I hope you don't mind a comment from me. I don't mean to offend you at all but it doesn't seem to me that you even understand MaxSem's question, and you are just repeating the same things and completely missing the question he is actually asking. You also don't seem to understand how to do replies or unblock requests properly, despite people fixing them for you and explaining several times. On the whole, I think Kudpung has it right and you are simply too young just now to contribute to Wikipedia productively (I'm not asking for your age or any personal details - if you're underage you should not disclose any of that). Young people make a great contribution to Wikipedia, but it is a tough place to work and you really need a bit of maturity behind you or the experience is likely to be unpleasant. So my suggestion is that you go and spend your time doing other things you enjoy, like watching your favourite movies or whatever else you like to do, and come back to Wikipedia in a few years time when you're a bit older - it will still be here and there will still be lots of work to be done! Squinge (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi so the last time that i saw on the talk page that i was on hold but i was keep continuing making unblocks request i should of just left it as on hold so could you please put me back on hold thank you. Again i am sorry what i did i know it was wrong to create rumors that dose not exist yet. I been making to much pages but some pages that i made got a proved. But i was creating pages for films that dose not exist yet so i want to apologize for doing something like that it will never happen again.

Decline reason:

SEVEN unblock requests are more than twice what we usualy accept. You have failed to provide answers to questions that may have helped considering to unblock you. We have given you enough chances. You are now wasting admins' and other users' time here so your talk page access is now withdrawn. Please follow the instructions below for making any further unblock requests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2015 (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.

OK, I've fixed your unblock request one more time - you can't be put back on hold once a request has been closed, so you do actually need a new request this time. It is "{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}" for an unblock request, and for ordinary replies it's just plain text with no "reason=". As I say, I really do think you are just too young to understand all this right now (and again don't actually reveal your age). Anyway, I'll repeat the question you were asked and have still not answered in case you actually want to make an attempt at it before an admin comes along to review:

• "Could you explain information from what kind of sources is considered appropriate for Wikipedia, and why?"

Squinge (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:DisneyNature monkey kingdom.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hope at the Cleearwater Marine Aquarium.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Hope (dolphin)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Hope (dolphin) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope (dolphin) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]