User talk:Arrogant & Intransigent

wassup?

Changing AfDs[edit]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.

Also, please do not alter Articles for Deletion discussions as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juicee News Daily and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy (dolphin). In both cases, you claimed that the article had been deleted when it hadn't and broke the links to the article by changing the lower case "l" in the article to a capital "I". This could be considered vandalism. It would tend to make people think the deletion debate was over and the article had already been deleted, when in fact the articles Juicee News Daily and Cindy (dolphin) have not been deleted yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above: I had to reverse your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 29 (U.S. series), as it wasn't appropriate for WP:SNOW at all. In addition, please do not remove good-faith comments on talk pages, such as the one you're removing on User talk:Ryulong. Acalamari 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT remove other's talk page comments as you did here at User:Ryulong. This is vandalism and you can be blocked for this. Prashanthns (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

Please do not deny unblock requests, as there are often factors that are not apparent to users that are unable to view the requesting users deleted contribs. You are more than welcome to comment, but the user denying the request should be a admin. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note, please leave xFD closures to administrators. Your speedy closures of several deletions have been overturned and reverted. This issue has been brought up at WP:ANI#User apparently posing as an admin. seicer | talk | contribs 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Please stop posing as an admin (which you are not) by claiming to review unblock requests, etc. - I am giving you a Level 4 warning in relation to this

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second this one. While your comments indicate that you are trying to be helpful, posing as an admin (particularly an uncivil one) is extremely disruptive. --jonny-m t 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arrogant & Intransigent. You have new messages at Prashanthns's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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).

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

Request reason:

Sockpuppet of who? Absolute nonsense. I've checked the user's contributions and they don't resemble mine at all. I have no idea who this person is. The username is not even similar. Wow, you don't suppose we shared the same IP now do you?

Decline reason:

Blocks confirmed by CheckUser are final. -- Netsnipe ► 10:44, 21 May 2008 (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.