User talk:Wowee Zowee public

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wowee Zowee public, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to World AIDS Day. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Airlines Flight 1086[edit]

The better the shape the article is in, the easier it is to show that WP:GNG is met. Have a look at the Villa Castelli helicopter crash article and you will see that there is an infobox and the article has a defined structure. Bare urls are not good either. {{infobox aircraft occurrence}} is the infobox template. {{cite web}} is the template to cite websites. Use <ref name=xxxx>{{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |accessdate=}}</ref> at minimum (you can copy and paste this). Other parameters may be added as required. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOP[edit]

Coffee, for 48 hours, do not make any edits on my user talk page without asking me first. Thank you. Do not constantly revert. Thank you. Your cooperation will be helpful in calming a situation. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OWNTALK, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". There are a few exceptions, but I don't see anything you removed as being covered by those exceptions. Feel free to remove entries from your own talk page. If anyone wants to see what's been posted there previously, they need only check the history. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You, Joe, are reasonable and do things to calm a situation. I, too, am trying to calm a situation. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

You are in a hole. I suggest that you stop digging. Digging causes the hole to get deeper. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just realized that Coffee was baiting me. He/she wanted an excuse to block me again or have someone do it for him. See how mean some admins are?! Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's just more of the same behavior you're being warned about, WZP. Please put down the WP:STICK, and step away from the conflict, or you are likely to be on the receiving end of a WP:BOOMERANG. Perhaps you should take a short break from editing, and see if you can disengage yourself from this. -- The Anome (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough[edit]

You can't possibly have the opinions you claim you have, so I have no choice but to assume you're just trying to stir up trouble. We have quite enough trouble here already, thank you, we don't need more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 14 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I have already said sorry and mentioned disengagement, so blocking is not warranted. See my last few comments proving that I am disengaging. The act of blocking is actually a move than incites more drama and warfare, not less. In fact, I mentioned to Ponyo on my final edit that I would step back for a few hours then correct an error upon return. See this shows correct and productive Wikipedian thinking! A final note. The duration of my block is permanent. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of the death penalty. Please do not murder me Wikipedia style. Unblocking now is called for but changing it it 15 hours is ok ....... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=651383318 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=prev&oldid=651382923 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=651382567 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=651382230 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=prev&oldid=651382023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wowee_Zowee_public&diff=prev&oldid=651381707

Decline reason:

I've read your last comment to Ponyo: as far as I can see, it does not look like you are stepping away, but instead appears to be yet another gambit to keep the drama going; as is the wording of the unblock request itself. You are welcome to appeal again, but I suggest you should take some time to read -- and understand -- the unblocking appeal guidelines first before doing so. -- The Anome (talk) 21:25, 14 March 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.

The Anome, I don't understand. You mean that I cannot edit Wikipedia forever? As in a death sentence? Wowee Zowee public (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, I have read what you asked me to. My message to Ponyo was not meant to be a legal defense. It was my last words which reflect my true thoughts, that is, the desire to step back and do some good editing in a few hours. If you quote me like a prosecutor would then imagine if you die in your sleep and some prosecutor say "your last words was 'good night', now let's twist it around...good night meant that some evil intent was there." No, my message to Ponyo was just an honest, off the cuff remark that I had good intentions.

If you unblock me without back and forth drama, here's what I intend to do. I intend to have a self imposed non-editing period, followed by correction of that error and trying to not fight with a few people that I think may be a bit aggressive. Stay away from the bad crowd, in other words.

If you insist on a death penalty (permanent blocking), that is really not right. Even drunk drivers are not executed and can drive again eventually with care not to drink. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 21:50, 14 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I have carefully read what The Anome requested that I read. I will edit well and avoid conflict, even if that mean running away from a fight. I now understand what happened (disclaimer: a full report would be very lengthy but this is the best for a few lines). Coffee did not fully explain himself/herself about his 24 hour block (he/she could be a better writer - I was inaccurately accused of 3RR by an editor named B.L. and did not, though I could have been more tactful in writing--that I learned!!) so it made me quite mad to have been blocked on a false 3RR accusation. Please allow me the chance in WP. If you do, I will put my thanks on my own page and will honor your thoughtful actions by being a good Wikipedian. Even if you unblock me now, I will not edit today except maybe a thank you comment or similar, even if baited. Please do not let there be a death penalty given to me, which is what permanent, indefinite blocks are.
A final note, The Anome invited me to reapply for the unblock request, just to read what he/she suggested, the unblock process, so I am not badgering you but following instructions.

Decline reason:

You are still blaming your block on Coffee. You do not get unlimited unblock requests, we have other people to deal with. "Death penalty" is silly, Wikipedia is not your life. Chillum 22:02, 14 March 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).

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

Request reason:

=Chillum, I am not blaming Coffee, I am stating the fact...read what I wrote..about Coffee, "I learned that I will be more tactful in writing--that I learned!!" I simply stated that I did not 3RR, that is a fact. I cannot lie and say that I did 3RR. However, I do say that I have learned how to be a good Wikipedian and will be. I hold my hat out, please do not chop off my head. Please unblock me. If you do, I will be very cautious and will not even edit to start.

Decline reason:

I cannot believe the sincerity of this request, particularly the "chop off my head" part. You are still pointing the blame for your block at everyone but yourself, and you have been entirely disruptive since you started editing Wikipedia. I see no evidence that your behaviour will change if unblocked. Further to this, your userpage suggests that you are an alternate account of an existing Wikipedian. If this account is an alternate account of another user, I highly recommend you disclose that account as part of any future unblock requests. If you are not, I suggest you explain your userpage. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:48, 14 March 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.

Please be aware that if your unblock requests are further denied, your talk page access could be revoked as well. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then administrators who don't want to unblock should just stay away and not deny it. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that Floquenbeam is right. There is no way you could really think that it is reasonable that your block be reviewed only by admins who do not want to decline it. Chillum 22:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick: there is User:Wowee Zowee, but it was created about 6 years ago, and has no contributions. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is most certainly another account somewhere, though it is not under this name (reasons for suspicion [1][2][3][4](Global Wowee Zowee)(Global Wowee Zowee public)). -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Id suggest you wait 6 months whilst editing constructively elsewhere but before then declare your other account ASAP. ~~Block evasion is a criminal offence in the UK in case you're editing from there.~~ 80.189.171.149 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion on Wikipedia is not a "criminal offense" anywhere. It is just grounds for a further blocking of additional user accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a "criminal offense" according to any government, but it is not allowed in Wikipedia. What I.P. editor 80.189.171.149 suggests ("Id suggest you wait 6 months whilst editing constructively elsewhere but before then declare your other account ASAP") is not correct to advise, given that you are blocked from editing in the English language wikipedia. If you edit in English language Wikipedia under a different account that would be block evasion. Don't do that. If and when you do get unblocked, though, it would be good advice to edit in different areas of the English language Wikipedia for 6 months or so, before returning to areas where you have been involved in conflict. Or, if the I.P. editor meant to edit constructively at other Wikimedia projects (Commons, or non-English wikipedias, where you are not blocked), that is good advice actually. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Parker Rice[edit]

A tag has been placed on Parker Rice requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]