User talk:Moosester

Welcome!

Hello, Moosester, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

PeterSymonds

Your signature[edit]

Just to let you know, your signature points to User:Mooseter instead of your username. Please fix that so confusion can be avoid. Thanks! Metros (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long tag[edit]

Please stop adding the "long article" tag to stubs. Stubs are short articles and, therefore, aren't anywhere close to being long. Thank you, Metros (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |==Unblock me please==[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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry if you thought I was vandilising I was just stating my opinion.I opposed those peoples rfa's because I had good reason to if you read well enough you would have realised that was the case,doesn't everyone on Wikipedia have a right to.Please unblock meMoosester (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thanks, but we don't need SPA's opinions. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:09, 13 March 2008 (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.

|It wasn't your edits on the RfA's that caught my attention, but your tagging articles with multiple conflicting tags like {{long}} and {{stub}}---your RfA votes just sealed the deal.Balloonman |talk) 07:33, 13 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Im really sorry, it wont happen ever again, i'm just getting used to wikipedia and id like another chance, please

Decline reason:

Agree with admins below. When block is over, do not behave in a disruptive manner any more. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:23, 13 March 2008 (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'll leave your second request for a review up there---despite your first one being declined. I did, however, shorten your block to 12 hours. Your multiple vandalisms of various files via unnecessary/contradictory tags and placing your name at the top of pages warrants a block. but when this block is over, remember not to tag articles for the simple sake of tagging articles.Balloonman (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an indef block as a vandalism-only account was unjustified, and that some of your tags were correct. Athiest, for example, may be 5600 words rather than 6000, but it's also about 80 kB. I thought your objection reasons were over the top (that's where I came across this case), but could be genuine. As such, I was considering raising this at AN/I. However, now that the block is 12 h - which is justifiable - I'm going to drop it. Unless the above request is granted, I suggest you sit out the 12 h. It really isn't that long. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thankz jay - jay for your support and thanks balloonman for reducing my blockMoosester (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]