Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Firefox Portable, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Firefox Portable was changed by WOLfan112 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.881626 on 2012-02-06T16:55:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Webs (web hosting), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bob Re-born (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem against me, I work so hard to edit Wikipedia and all you can do is hand out warnings. I do not mind you reverting my edits, but its a completely different thing randomly handing out warnings to people who try. Now I am to nervous to edit in case I get blocked for vandalism!!!--WOLfan112 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                                                             Yes I am very sorry about these. It has almost been a year.

Questions and things like that are for the talk page (this page). ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit new. Sorry.--WOLfan112 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second, you are TAP!UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                                                                        I understand that now!

If you think the article has problems and makes SOPA look bad, discuss it on the talk page. No reason at all to send it to deletion just because it needs fixing up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                                                     Yes, those AFDs were slightly inappropriate!

The article Operation 7 (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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 process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                                                          WHOOPS, untrusted sources and COI!

Please stop nominating valid articles for deletion. Please read WP:GD for more information on Wikipedia's deletion policy. Failure to comply will result in a temporary block on this account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am a bit new. No offense.--WOLfan112 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're new you shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion until you have a firmer grasp of policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

k, I will just stick to adding maintenance tags--WOLfan112 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you nominated a couple of articles which got speedily kept. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which is helpful in deciding which articles should go to AFD. These are "de facto" guides, but are pretty accurate as to what gets kept and what gets deleted, in addition to the notability guidelines such as the general one Wikipedia:Notability and the subject-specific ones listed there. See WP:BEFORE, which advises that you familiarize yourself with deletion-related policies and guidelines, and that first you check for reliable sources before nominating for deletion. Depending on what type of subject, I generally check http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search to see if the subject is covered in books, http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search to see if there are scholarly articles about it, and http://news.google.com/ to see if there is recent news coverage. Google used to have Google News Archive, and it is still there, accessible through the current Google News, but they've stopped adding to the news archives. For some categories of subjects, such as professional athletes, popular music, and electronic games, there are specialized guides I'm not that familiar with. Best regards. Edison (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation 7 (video game) 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/Operation 7 (video game) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor who seems keen to edit here, but with a lack of direction as to how they can contribute constructively, you may be in want of some advice. I see that you are using twinkle. Now twinkle is a good tool for reverting vandalism. To revert obvious vandalism you can look at the recent changes page (link in column at the right, under wiki logo) or if you wish to be more fruitful you can just monitor the recent changes made by ip editors [1](as a high proportion of this is vandalism or editing tests). To do this click on the diff beside each recent change on the list to check whether the change is vandalism / edit test / spam link etc. If (and only) it is you can revert it using the rollback buttons provided with twinkle and provide an appropriate edit summary, plus you can then warn the user that made such an edit using the appropriate warning level (1,2,3, or 4(final)) and warning message. If an edit is not obvious vandalism but still not appropriate you can rollback with the rollback(AGF) (Assume Good Faith) button and an edit summary stating why you have undone the edit.

Any way you will get your edit count up by doing this, plus pages you edit by this method will be automatically added to your watchlist so you can watch via your watchlist for happenings on these pages and their associated talk pages. Just remember that if you are not sure if it's obvious vandalism or edit tests, don't revert the edit as if it was, as you need to assume good faith (WP:AGF).

Any way should you choose to accept this advice from a fellow editor, make sure you read WP:VANDAL and WP:ROLLBACK first to pick up on the subtle points I may not have explained. Re: your comment on Requests for rollback page about another editor's high rate of edits, there are tools to help you edit faster on wikipedia (such as stiki, huggle, igloo, awb) but you first need some weeks or months of experience with the basics first to get a hang on how things work here, plus to learn the relevant policies, and edit accordingly.

Any way I hope I have been helpful, just ignore this advice if you have a better plan for yourself. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly accept the mission, as soon as you stop assigning wikilawyers at me! By the way how do I get that multicolored super-cool signature.--WOLfan112 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can put your signature in html mark-up on your preferences page. See Wikipedia:Signatures and Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many more rollbacks before I can get rollback permissions. Any other awesome tolls?--UserWOLfan112 talk 17:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The patroling admin at requests for rollback said you had to wait a month from the time you last applied before they would consider your request again. If you keep up with the vandal patroling till then and don't mess up in some epic fashion I don't see them refusing your next permissions request. Also, it's best not to give out an "only warning" warning message, stick to the warning levels 1-4. Vandals need to be sufficiently warned before they are blocked for the sake of fairness and to give them the opportunity to reform. You can opt into X!'s edit counter [2] if you want to keep track of your edit stats. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the edits this ip really scares me. I am too scared to revert it. If reverting vandalism on wikipedia means I get threatend, I QUIT.--UserWOLfan112 talk 16:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my talk above! :)--UserWOLfan112 talk 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me check list or a date when you give me rollback.

I have reverted 100 cases of vandalism, and wikipedia clearly states "Because rollback only takes a single click, without asking for confirmation, even experienced users may sometimes accidentally click rollback when (for example) merely attempting to click on the page in order to scroll up or down". So 1/2 mistakes is not a good excuse for denying me [[rollback]].--UserWOLfan112 Talk 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rollback permission is not hard, you just have to demonstrate a need for it (by reverting vandalism), and demonstrate that you have the competence to use it properly (By being able to distinguish between vandalism edits, edit tests, good faith edits, and legitimate edits). People do get rollback within a couple of days of registering accounts, it is not hard. You do not help your cause by asking the admin who said "comeback in two weeks" if you could get rollback less than a day later. So my advice, wait the two weeks, do some vandal patrolling till then (doesn't need to be 50reverts/day if that is too much to handle), making sure you are careful with your reverts (not reverting legitimate edits as vandalism, & include the appropriate warnings for edits you do revert), then request rollback. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if you didn't make reverting mistakes nearly every day (example from yesterday). Why do you need rollback if you're already (mis)using Twinkle? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears you need to demonstrate competence before you can get rollback. So the emphasis here is on improving the accuracy of your edits not the quantity. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to AGF, stop treating me like an IP vandal. I have a 90% accuracy - ask me politely to improve it. Not suggest I am vandalising wikipedia with twinkle. I have made all my reverts in good faith. Even if some are wrong!--UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith#Good faith and newcomers, you may perhaps understand our perspective more clearly. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 04:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand why admins weren't running to give you rollback, so I explained. 90% accuracy is not very accurate when it comes to reverting vandalism, and I've never questioned your good faith attempts. You just need to be more careful and not rush things. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a learning curve to editing wikipedia, 2 weeks or a month doesn't strike me as an unreasonable length of time to give yourself to take it all in and learn from your experience and your mistakes inorder to sufficiently improve your editing abilities and knowledge (As a wikipedia editor you should always be open to improvement and to learning new things, no matter how experienced). Take your time, don't just look at the most recent diff on a page, look at the article edit history to get a feel for patterns of what is normal for that page, take a quick look at the page content to see how recent changes fit in. If in doubt assume it is a good faith edit and leave it be, or for another editor with more experience to revert. Also look up the contributions of the editor before reverting to learn about their editing patterns and behaviour, ask yourself what experience do they have, is it all nonconstructive, or are they on the right path to contributing constructively. Considering these things will positively improve your accuracy. Specifically, look up WP:NOTVAND, WP:IP!=VANDAL, & WP:OAGF. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 03:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If have requested rollback again. What reason are you going to use to deny me this time. Or do I need to change name (again) or even get a fresh start (though I'd rather not, but I will if u all hate me to much). Is it true you prefer IP vandals then people like me (as you get to have fun reverting their edits. But I keep arguing when u revert my edits). Don't worry, I'll try to stop arguing and won't be bold as this type of behavior will soon get me blocked.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to state my personal experience with rollback. I've been an editor since 2007, and I didn't request rollback until September of last year. You do not need rollback to revert vandalism. I didn't even use Twinkle but instead did a combination of undos and manual reverts (mostly manual reverts) from the first time I ever reverted up until the point I got rollback. And my reverting is still mostly manual reverts and undos because not everything is clear-cut, obvious vandalism, which is supposed to be what rollback is used for. Rollback is rigid in that it doesn't let you input an edit summary, and if an edit isn't obviously vandalism, people are going to want to know why you reverted. It really is best a lot of the time to use manual reverts and undo (or to use Twinkle, if that's more your style). - Purplewowies (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent application to use the counter-vandalism tool.VandalSniper. VandalSniper is a very powerful tool that has the potential to disrupt the encyclopedia if misused, so it requires editors to be regularly active, experienced, and trustworthy. I have considered and declined your application to use the tool at this time. You are welcome to re-apply again after three months, and you may want to visit Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Tools for links to alternative counter-vandalism tools. Regards, AGK [•] 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I noticed you recently created the above page. There was already an article on engineering education: you'll find that if you enter a word in the wp search box it will (like google) make suggestions: had you done this the existing title would have been appeared. I've changed your page to a redirect. Any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page.TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously cool your jets. I just noticed a revert of an edit to one of the pages I have on my watchlist. The addition that had been made was in fact a reasonable one: most of the cars Voisin built were luxury cars, but the real point is that one does not have to individually cite everything in an article. The principle is that assertions should be verifiable, not that everything has to have a cite. If every word inserted had cite, articles would be illegible thicket of notemarks and editing would be impossible. Looking at the reversions you've made, I think you are being trigger-happy: I would advise that unless you're looking at an article on a subject about which you are knowledgeable I would limit reverts to obvious vandalism. Most vandalism is obvious. Vandals don't change 2 goals to 3: they change 2 goals to 20000000. It would also be an intelligent guess that somebody with the uername 'jetstream' has some knowledge of (& reference for) airline operation matters. Most page of any consequence are probably watchedby by somebody who will know the subject & the article, and will revert unhelpful edits.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a person changes 2 goals to 3, they need a new reference. I should have done agf on the one--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Assume good faith. and incidentally getting wiki cite tags to perform isn't the easiest of things to get right, & somebody who smply comes to wiki & sees something they know is wrong my either not have a cite to hand or not be able get a cite to work. Incidentlly you don't need to ping my talkpage: yours is on my watchlist, so I'll see if you've replied.TheLongTone (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not that I want to come over as you can run, but you can't hide, your recent name change request is ill-advised. Not just becuse your requested name makes you appear to be a fruit loop, but also because if you change your name, the new name will appear as as the user on the edit you made under the old name. Does everybody hate you? I certainly don't: I just think you have a lot to learn. I see no trace of general loathing or threats here either, unless you've deleted themTheLongTone (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I know this in my years of vandal fighting experience" - You've been editing for two months. Given your recent behavior, you are extremely likely to be blocked in the near future. What are your intentions toward the project? MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply tired of issuing warnings!!! Why would I be blocked exactly. My interest is to build trust with the community so that I can be successful in my RFA which I will post in a month. The village pump seemed a great place to get attention. I was just about to add "If you have found that I am dedcated enough to WP, please nominate me for administratorship". Isn't adminship what every contributer dreams of. " years xp seemed a bit more effective. Can u nominate me 4 RFA.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every editor "dreams of" being an administrator. There are even users who quite clearly state that they do not want to be admins. I myself currently do not want to be an admin (it takes a lot of experience, and I don't even feel I've mastered the Manual of Style yet). Someone who expresses a strong desire to become an admin could be seen as having adminitis (note that the page I linked to is supposed to be considered humorous). - Purplewowies (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like a multi-player game. You become admin, u win. U get blocked, u lose.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you improve the encyclopedia, everyone wins. If your goal is other than that, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. In any event, I strongly discourage you from running for admin in a month. It is unlikely to be successful. LadyofShalott 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOLfan, if that is how you are using your account to approach wikipedia then you clearly aren't playing your game very well. BTW how many other accounts are you using? You say you have changed your name previously, I would refer to WP:SOCK but you seem to be aware of that already, then how about reading Wikipedia:Griefing instead? You say you are a philosopher, if you wouldn't mind, can you elaborate on this and how this relates to your activities here on wikipedia? SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 03:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: work on articles, improve the encyclopedia, take your time and learn the policies. Then in several months, if it feels right then, think about applying for adminship - there's no rush. LadyofShalott 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as someone who's voted at RfA many times, I would be very uncomfortable with voting to Support someone who had been active on Wikipedia for less than a year, extremely uncomfortable with voting to Support someone who hadn't been fully active in articlespace in adding useful content, likely Oppose someone who could not communicate in standard English ("U" and "4," for instance, are not words) and would strongly Oppose anyone who had ever expressed an entitlement mentality or viewed adminship as "winning a multi-player game." Wikipedia is not a place to "get attention," but a serious project which needs serious editors.

  You build trust by proving you are trustworthy, and that doesn't take days here: it can take months or years. There is no magic bullet which will speed up the process. Ravenswing 01:01, 27 March 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was lurking at WP:RFP and saw your request for rollback and followed the rabbit hole. It seems the general consensus would be that you should look for a WP:MENTOR. Having used Twinkle and Rollback to fight vandalism with some fair accuracy (after a few weeks of poking and prodding in the right direction), I think we should talk about what is and is not vandalism (as well as the other issues that were brought up at your ANI). The Wikipedia namespace is filled with way too much alphabet soup, and I'd be more than happy to direct you to the right places and answer any follow-ups you may have. You clearly have enthusiasm for the project, and I'd hate to see someone with energy and spirit turned away because no one was willing to help shape them into a constructive contributor. What do you say, would you like to work together to get you back on the right track? Achowat (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,but here R someconditions, I get a new name, U wipe my whole talk page, I get a freash start. --UserWOLfan112 Talk 21:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this from the ANI. Read WP:CLEANSTART. This only works if you make a complete break from this account. It doesn't mean this account's contributions (including the talk page) get deleted. If you leave this account retired, create a new one, and maybe email Achowat to let him know your new account name for mentorship, that could work. However, if you go right back to editing the same areas and get recognized, there's nothing you can do about it. And that will probably engender even stronger resentment towards you.

I strongly recommend you just stick to this account and let Achowat mentor you here, but it's your choice. Either way, wait until the ANI discussion is completed before making a new account; otherwise, it may be considered attempting to evade any decision made on ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HandThatFeeds is right. It's a lot better, a lot better, if you were to use this account instead of going through WP:CLEANSTART. We have long memories here at Wikipedia (we keep track of every change to every page) but we're a forgiving bunch. For me, at least, I don't care what you did a year ago, 3 months ago, or even yesterday. If today you're actively working to build a better encyclopedia than the one you found when you logged on, you're a comrade and a Wikipedian, a good one at that. If you do WP:CLEANSTART (which, again, I don't think would be the ideal solution), please shoot me an email if Mentoring is something you want to do.

Now, there are things you can do, aside from Clean Starting, to effectively meet your conditions. You can Change your username. You could Archive, or hell even remove all the content from your Talk Page (but note, anyone could look through your Page History to see). Even if we ignored WP:DELTALK and deleted your page, it'd still be viewable by admins, so I have to imagine you wouldn't approve of that. As to "getting a fresh start", I assume you mean "have people forget about my previous transgressions". And, honestly, people will. As I've said before, and the reason Mentoring has been suggested at ANI, people really want to believe that the issues associated with your editing are a matter of unfamiliarity with the way things work around here, rather than a malicious intent. I don't think you're a vandall, I don't think you're a troll, what I do think is that you need a little help. I am offering that to you, and if want to take that "retired" banner down and work with me, I'd love to help you put your enthusiasm to good use. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. 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. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Ostrich, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 12:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Polyester, you may be blocked from editing. The reverted edit can be found here. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:24, 27 April 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).

WOLfan112 (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, I understand my actions and know they were wrong and will not make more accounts ever again! UserWOLfan112 Talk 17:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even before your socking was discovered, there was a consensus at ANI that your actions were demonstrating both a level of immaturity and a lack of writing skills which are incompatible with productive work here. Take this year to mature, read, and practice writing. Come back in a year's time and show us that you can behave in a mature manner. LadyofShalott 18:15, 21 June 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.

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).

WOLfan112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would just like to say I am sorry. I am sorry for all the time I spent fighting vandalism, all the time spent writing stubs and linking articles. And this is how you repay me, by blocking me just because I am not "competent" enough-In other words-you are basically telling me I am not good enough for Wikipedia.UserWOLfan112 Talk 18:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This probably isn't the ideal way of demonstrating your maturity or your competence. In any case, this is not an unblock request, and so procedurally declined. Please give it a year or so before you request another. Thanks. — foxj 18:22, 21 June 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.

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).

WOLfan112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is my last Unblock request! I am very sorry! UserWOLfan112 Talk 11:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you haven't addressed the reason for the block to begin with, it doesn't seem likely that you would be able to conform to the expectations of behavior here. I would strongly suggest you give this a rest for a year, and perhaps at that time, if you were able to articulate that you understand the reasons you were blocked, and provide reassurance that it won't happen again, it might be considered. However, at this point, you are only digging the hole deeper and I would strongly suggest you simply walk away and stay away for a year. If you continue to request unblocks like this, very likely your talk page access will be removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:48, 24 June 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.

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).

WOLfan112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand I shouldn't have made more then one account, I understand I was doing it to evade scurnity. I understand my patience has been a problem and that spam page was completely unacceptable. I will not do any of these again. UserWOLfan112 Talk 12:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block was mainly due to your lack of maturity and of writing skills. Basically, you are too young and immature to edit Wikipedia constructively. Give it a year and then come back to request an unblock; until then, I anticipate that all your unblock requests will be declined. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:11, 24 June 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.

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).

WOLfan112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unblock me please. I have changed! UserWOLfan112 Talk 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've changed in the couple of weeks it's been since your latest sock was blocked. Not buying it, as you've been told before, come back in about a year when you've gained some maturity, carry on as you are and you'll find your block turns into a ban, meaning forever Jac16888 ^Talk 19:16, 3 July 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.

• Five unblock requests, without showing any improvement in them, is a few too many. I've removed your talk page access, so the one you just made will be the last one you're allowed here for now. If you wish to continue contesting the block, please follow the instructions provided at WP:ARBCOM#BASC to have Arbcom review your block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WOLfan112 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WOLfan112 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on a massage to enwp

Can you please pass on a massage to enwp that I have changed the password to this account to a long string I can't possibly remeber to ensure I can never return to wikipedia. The only way to return would be through another account, which is not allowed. I can't edit due to block to my talk page. So with that I say, goodbye wikimedia commons!WOLfan112 (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From b:WB:HELP Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]