User talk:The Cosmos Master

QUESTION What can I do? I got blocked from editing, and I said sorry but no-one is listening to me and now there talking about removing my talkpage access. I only want to make constructive edits. Shall I create a new account and make constructive edis from that?-- The Cosmos Master ( talk ) 19:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The answer is, quite bluntly, GO AWAY for at least 6 months, and then we'll see. DO NOT make another account, it will just get blocked as a sockpuppet. Your continued inability to "get the point" has those of us who've interacted with you concerned for your future ability to contribute positively. Alternatively, email ArbCom as noted at the very bottom of the page. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Further note: if you really want to show that you can contribute positively, then go contribute at another Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Commons, English Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc. etc., without getting blocked/banned/sanctioned for misbehavior there -- and no more editing here, at all, until you are unblocked. After 6 months or so, we may be willing to consider allowing you to return, as per the standard offer &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

GT Advanced Technologies?
I added the GT Advanced Technologies page to complement an addition I made to the Twin Creeks Technologies page. It seems to me that if the Twin Creeks Technologies page exists, then a page should exist for the company that purchased them (i.e. GT Advanced Technologies). I took the info on GT Advanced Technologies from their web page and summarized it. Anyway, I don't really understand your criteria. A Twin Creeks Technologies page without an accompanying GT Advanced Technologies page seems incomplete Tomdinan (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

blocked
I've just blocked you indef for abusing multiple accounts per the findings of Sockpuppet investigations/The Cosmos Master. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism
I'd ask you to look a little closer before blindly reverting my changes to the Akinwale Arobieke page and accusing me of vandalism. Ther single change I made was to fill in his motives, which were absent before my change and accurate after it. Accusing me of vandalism does me a disservice. Daycase (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. It looked like vandalism to me.-- The Cosmos Master ( talk ) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: Much as I'd like to refuse this appeal myself, I'll leave it for another admin, since I've already declined one appeal above. However, I would point out that this user was socking as recently as yesterday, under the account User:Dr Science Geek. I would recommend a lockdown on this talkpage as well, judging from its history. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the removal of relevant talkpage content isn't helpful regarding assessment of unblock requests. Perhaps blocking editing of own talk page should be seriously considered; to continue socking and submit an unblock request against advice given by others could be considered disruptive editing. -- Trevj (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

MY REPLY Yes I was Dr Science Geek but It was not abusing multiple accounts I was making constuctive edits. As for my talkpage access I dissagree with revoking it because I am not abusing it. I only want to make constructive edits so please give me a 2nd chance.-- The Cosmos Master ( talk ) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This blocked user ( [ block log] | [ active blocks] | autoblocks | [ unblock] | contribs | deleted contribs | [ abuse log] ) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sonning Common Health Walks


The article Sonning Common Health Walks has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "fails WP:notabiliy, no significant coverage outside of a few local news articles."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tim Landy (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)