User talk:Receptie123

Extended content

Retired This user is no longer active on Wikipedia. This user is no longer available on English Wikipedia User:stephenwanjau User talk:Receptie123 User:Recetie123/to do Awards User talk:Receptie123/Archives User:stephenwanjau/beyond wikipedia Userpage (en) Talk Contact me Interests Awards Archives I Got a Life! Contributions Bold text Welcome to my talk page! If you leave me a note here I will probably reply here, unless you specify otherwise or unless I feel it is important enough to "get your attention" via a reply on your talk page. If you came here to ask why I deleted (or took other action) on a specific page, please specify which article using [[article name]] somewhere in your message or else I might not be able to figure out what you are talking about. If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please Click Here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. To keep discussions coherent, I will usually answer in the talk page where the first message was placed. If I left you a message on another talk page, please answer there: I will have it on my watch list. Thank you. Please note: new text goes under old text on talk pages. Thank you! Archives 1 Click here to leave me a new comment. (Contact me) Please read my contact page User:Receptie123/Contact Me If i am on holiday i will right it on the front of my TALK page. Welcome I understand your enthusiasm, but pleease consider not placing welcome templates on the talk pages of new users who have never edited. Thanks. For more information see WP:Welcoming Committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] August 2012 Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from User:Callanecc without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Licusoara This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Receptie123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) 109.9.196.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block message: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Licusoara". The reason given for Licusoara's block is: "Vandalism-only account". Blocking administrator: Icairns (talk • blocks) Accept reason: Apparently, you have the same IP as a vandal. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have nothing to do with Licusoara,i don`t even know who he/she is. This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Licusoara (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am not a sock puppet of licusoara I have nothing to do with Licusoara,please unblock me.If you don`t can you please send me on my email what i had on my userpage 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). Receptie123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am not a suck puppet of Licusoara,i don`t even know her/him.Please unblock me Receptie123 (talk) 2:19 am, Today (UTC−5) Decline reason: I concur with Kudpung. Danger! ^High voltage! 08:58, 14 August 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. } (Non-administrator comment) The SPI case is here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately Receptie, a Technical Investigation that was done here demonstrates that you, and a few others, are the same person. You may wish to consider our Standard Offer, 'indefinite' does not mean permanent, but the decision rests with us and it's unlikely that you will be unblocked anytime soon. This will also give you at least 6 months time to read WP:Guidance for younger editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please don't think i'm a younger editor 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). Receptie123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have found out this afternoon that my girl has created this account Licusoara.That explains why i replied emidiently.And then she creared Mimitica.She told me about Wikipedia,but not that she had an acount.I will not let her edit Wikipedia again.Please unblock me.e Receptie123 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Decline reason: Not believable, considering all the behaviourial evidence. Max Semenik (talk) 14:36, 14 August 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. How can i prove it MaxSem? AFC Backlog Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2789 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser ^TSU I am blocked for a fake reasonReceptie123 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't think so. Styles of writing are too similar for one thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2789 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am more trusted now.I am a rollback on Simple English Wikipedia

And have now been blocked there as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 Months from block

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).

Receptie123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This is an Arbitration Committee block and can't be overturned without approval by either the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or the full Committee. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2013 (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 block was confirmed by Arbcom as indefinite. Please make your unblock request there as you did before. You will need to provide convincing reasons for requesting - the fact that 6 months has nearly elapsed is not a sufficient reason. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What more details should i include?Receptie123 (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Receptie123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have two reasons for being unblocked: 1. I am not the sockpuppet, it was my neighbour that was Mimitica and one of my children who was Licusoara.They wanted me to be in trouble. 2. You said after 6 or more months i could be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Let's see, first you had no idea who those users were, then you said both were your daughter, now you say one was a neighbor; perhaps you might get your stories straight. You've still been editing without logging in. You'll need to appeal to WP:BASC. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:39, 23 March 2013 (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 only found out the truth now.

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has looked into the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply (either to the community or to the Committee) to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 11 April 2013 (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).

Receptie123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Its been a very long time since I requested. I would like to be unblocked because over the years I've changed and will only make constructive edits to this Wiki (as I did on Simple Wikipedia). I am no longer who I used to be. If I am unblocked I will help with anti-vandalism, maybe a few articles, etc.

Decline reason:

You should appeal to the BASC. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 11 February 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.