User talk:Oscar247

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Oscar247, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! PK T(alk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Oscar1994alex1999[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Oscar1994alex1999 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PK T(alk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Oscar1994alex1999[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Oscar1994alex1999 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. BusterD (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stoneleigh park road[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stoneleigh park road requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ayebroon[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Ayebroon, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Theo polisme 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can I apologise to the blatant vandalism that has been posted by my account. I left my computer at home for about 15 minutes or so to go on a run. It appears that my son has taken the time to disrupt Wikipedia and for that I am very disappointed (the account is not compromised). I will take care in the future of logging my account off in the future as I hate it when this sort of stuff happens on the site. William Oscar247 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Yes, logging off your account is a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just make sure your son doesn't go into your account again. I had to revert a edit that he did with Sylvester Stallone as a death hoax type deal because his death would have been all over the news, it's not. So you need to deal with your son for this. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar247 account[edit]

Hi, the recent entries on your talk page have flagged up to my watchlist because I have it as a favourite. The contributions up to 2012 on the Oscar247 account were by my son, his first wiki-contributions. As far as I know he closed that account (or Wikipedia closed it for him!), he is now Oscar248 and a reasonably active contributor. I assume you created a page called Oscar247 and the contributions by my son simply show up because he used that user name previously? If that's the case I will delete it from my favourites. Regards, Thegraciousfew (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2017 (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).

Oscar247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, just before this was posted I made a statement on my user page regarding my identity. I would like Oscar248 to be reinstated on some kind of probation as I want to constructively edit Wikipedia again. I know editing using this account is not good but I only took up this as I saw articles where m y input could be beneficial to the site. I am asking for one last chance - on some sort of probation where I will also stick to a strict 1RR. I give you my full assurance that the block of my account is no longer needed to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Oscar247 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. And by evading your block, you blew the opportunity to come back in a month, on your original account. Your best bet now is to wait six months and apply under WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2017 (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.

You were told on the Oscar248 to come back in a month. That in no way translated to "go edit on another account." I highly doubt someone will unblock Oscar248 in the originally proposed month now. only (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have said that I have no intention to cause disruption anymore. In the event of vandalism after an unblock, it would only take 2 minutes to indefinitely block me again. I am eager to be a good contributor to Wikipedia on my main account, Oscar248. The time makes not difference, I realise my actions were not acceptable and want to move on by editing constructively. Oscar247 (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to circumvent a block by sockpuppetry after having agreed to not edit for a month. Why should we now believe anything you promise? You did exactly what I said you gave the appearance of doing, tried to find loop hole to enable you to block evade.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I can be blocked again after any uncontructive edits. This would only take 2 minutes of an administrators time. The reason I used my sockpuppet was out to f eagerness to return to being a useful contributor. The six month block is punitive, not preventative and only encourages further sockpuppetry. Oscar247 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can just not unblock you and save someone the work. No the reason you used your sock was to evade a ban. And I do no a 6 month ban is not punitive, it prevents us going through all of this again when you decide you are cleverer then we are. The mere fact you say "only encourages further sockpuppetry" proves you hold any sanction (and thus by inference our code of conduct) in contempt, and after that comment I woulds urge a range block. You have just proved that you cannot be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to edit anymore as a sockpuppet, I just want to get unblokced on my main account. This as all got out of hand. I am even proposing some sort of probation type deal where an administrator could decide the terms. If I wanted to create another sockpuppet I would. Believe me it is easy. But I will not create any more as I would like to return to being a constructive contributor. One more chance. Oscar247 (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to get an unblock...by breaking the rules and not doing as you promised? You made an (not very veiled) threat to sock if not unblocked, you used a sock to block evade. I now formally ask for a range block, and a check buster to see of this user has any more accounts (see below).

Now a list of issues in "your eagerness to edit" Saying other users have short attention spans (a PA) [1] Referring to discussions on other pages to justify an edit on this one [2]. Changing an Essay on conduct with a clear bias [3]. Calling blatant vandalism "NOT A SEVER VIOLATION" [4] (in fact this is an odd edit in general, you never seem to have interacted with this user and it is hard to see why you would be aware of them and their block. Noner of these in and of themselves are an issue, but they do present a pattern (along with your block evasion) of some one who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to play games.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely accept that, my actions over the the last week were all in bad faith, in that time I was not editing to build an encyclopedia. But now I would like to come back and edit as a did before, where I was contributing constructively. I found RaspberryBlood as I was looking on the edit conflict page. The CheckUser page will show they have nothing to do with me, I promise.

I will not be replying here anymore, but on your main account. It might be a good idea if this account is closed and a permanent block is put on even the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

User evaded the block as KU2018 (talk · contribs). However, after initially lying about this, the user subsequently acknowledged and apologised for the disruption. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]