User talk:Nokia621

Elliot Rodger article[edit]

Hello. I saw on the Elliot Rodger talkpage that you believe he should have an article. I believe he should too and created a draft and want to get your opinion on it. Do you think it is any good? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's great and very in depth. Talk page really appears to be on the support side of making it a separate page. I'll see what I can do. Nokia621 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate it! I see it has finally been created. Rodger has always been one of the most notable mass murderers so its about time he had his own article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! PS: I do fear a certain moderator might try to reverse it, despite that overall positive consensus. Nokia621 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of high-quality editors like you agree that he should have an article. Hopefully, that means something to them. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lanza - Redirect for Discussion[edit]

I notice you have started a proposal to list Adam Lanza at Redirects for Discussion. To make this happen you need to follow all the steps outlined at WP:RFDHOWTO. If you do not do this relatively soon, I am quite prepared to propose the redirect for discussion and argue that the redirect should be kept and explain why it should be kept. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, I've removed the badly placed RFD tag on the Adam Lanza redirect page. I'll trust you to file the RfD properly if you are planning to do so.

Nokia621, you should rethink the addition of the two templates on your user page since you don't meet the criteria for either. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Thanks for reverting the incomplete RfD tag. As it had gone by lunchtime, for me, I will take time consider my next actions in this matter. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 That was ironic, no need to come after me like this... Nokia621 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nokia621: I hope you realise the templates on your user page provide access to some very revealing statistics about your editing habits. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Dewe That was ironic, no need to come after me like this... Nokia621 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaga meat dress.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gaga meat dress.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Shane and Friends) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 20 May 2024 (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).

Nokia621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I started a discussion about in the talk page as requested.Nokia621 (talk)

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2024 (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).

Nokia621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't touched the Shane and Friends page ever since getting the warning. Instead, I started a deletion review and am following all the protocols to get this page undeleted.

Decline reason:

This doesn't tell why you need access to the (currently a) redirect page, until you get the text undeleted, I see no need of you to edit it, as your edit warring shows you have difficulty not being disruptive there. You seem to have difficulty seeing the difference between a person being notable and their work being notable- these are two different things. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2024 (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.