User talk:Amorite Mercenary

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Amorite Mercenary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was changed by Amorite Mercenary (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874207 on 2017-05-23T22:04:39+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Behlok[edit]

Hi. I have Joelle Behlok on my watchlist, probably because I requested it be deleted. Accordingly, I've noticed your illegitimate attempt to re-create it. I'm watching Joelle Behlock, too, so I can have that deleted when necessary. I recommend you create a user sandbox and develop an entry there and then submit that draft for review. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I wonder why the page has been deleted in the first place though?! I read that someone claims that this person is not notable !! How come? She reached the semi-finals of Miss World 1997; moreover she has two pictures uploaded here !! so why do you claim that it is an illegitimate attempt to re-create an article for her ?! Amorite Mercenary (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you "read that someone claims that this person is not notable". Well, then you have your answer. Wikipedia has a bunch of notability criteria. Subjects have to pass just one of them for us to have an article on them. We don't have any special criteria for contestants in beauty pageants, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, or Ambassadors of G8 countries. All those subjects have to be generally notable, which she isn't. That's why I'm recommending that you build a draft first and get some help with it, and when it's ready it can be accepted. If you go about this the wrong way it's going to turn out bad for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: LOL ! Mini-Troutman (you would consider this as a personal attack which sensitive Wikipedians dont like ... well .. you are the one who hit the hornets nest) is trying to be a smarta** by saying that I should not wonder about the first deletion, and by giving lame examples such as "CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, or Ambassadors of G8 countries" ! How rude !

Joelle is well-known in her region as I mentioned earlier, and she has a Wikipedia article in 4 languages. You cannot decide who is considered as "famous" and according to which criteria, because I can tell that you do not know who is the president of Malawi for instance ! I am not writing a Masters thesis under Troutman supervision to prepare a draft for the article ! I guess that we are adults enough to overcome these cheap rants that you have started ! Amorite Mercenary (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joelle Behlock for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joelle Behlock 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/Joelle Behlock 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of multiple accounts[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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:43, 28 July 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).

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

Request reason:

You can check my edits using this account !! So how in hell that I am misusing different accounts while changing my socks ! In this wikipedia, there are extremists who force their sick ideologies into this free encyclopedia and they get away with it, yet you block me for editing articles about arts and sports ! sad ! Amorite Mercenary (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (talk) 20:47, 28 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

What kind of damage or disruption that I cause to Wikipedia ????? You can check my edits and judge if I contribute or not ! here you dont give any simple example of a misuse other than claiming that I change my socks and puppets ! it is really sad how some people can create fake accusations to hinder others from editing ! I said once and I would repeat it, I DONT damn write about politics neither attack any one, so why the hell should I be banned indefinitely ! It is a big shame ! and @Chris troutman:, I wonder why you are so happy that I am blocked, just to delete my article and improve your s*** statistics ! honestly you have serious mental issues, and this is not a personal attack because it is a fact and I wont be surprised that you were stalking my edits which at the end caused my ban as being damaging and disrupting poor wikipedia ! Amorite Mercenary (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I doubt you're ready to come back to the community if you're insulting editors in your unblock request. You've been checkuser blocked, so there is evidence that you were using multiple accounts. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 29 July 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.