User talk:Thetreeofhope

Please do not write on this page. Thanks.


 * You obviously don't understand the purpose of this page. It exists so that people can write on it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not disobey. Thanks.


 * You need to read Talk page guidelines, which clearly states that talk pages exist "to provide space for editors to discuss changes" to articles. You cannot treat this as your personal space and ban everybody else. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not invade my personal space. Thanks.


 * That's the point I'm trying to make - this isn't your personal space, it's space that WP offers you to interact with other editors. If you're not willing to do that, then perhaps MySpace or Facebook would be a better fit for you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User 69.181.249.92 is blocked from writing on this page due to continued vandalism. Thetreeofhope (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL.... Like you have that power. Judging by your edits so far, you are what we call a vandalism-only account. If you continue your wicked ways, you'll end up being blocked pretty soon anyway. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be rude. You are blocked from this page indefinitely. Thanks.


 * You don't have the authority to block me. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. HaeB (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking
Blocking is a technical restriction. You do not have the ability to actually block other users, only administrators do. You can ask 69.181.249.92 not to post to your talk page though, and 69.181.249.92 should respect that request. If not, one or both of you may end up blocked for real. Reach Out to the Truth 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider the false and misleading block tag to be a personal attack and will continue to remove it on sight. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a spiritual blocking. Thank you for your understanding and agreement. Thetreeofhope (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User 69.181.249.92 has been SPIRITUALLY blocked indefinitely from editing this page due to vandalism Vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Please note this is a SPIRITUAL BLOCKING. Thetreeofhope (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Do do do do dooby do


A tag has been placed on Do do do do dooby do, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

there is no chance of establishing notability for this, but no other speedy reason applies

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Do do do do dooby do


The article Do do do do dooby do has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * irreparably non-notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Hi Thetreeofhope - your recent edit patterns suggest that you have ceased trying to edit constructively. If this pattern continues, I will take steps to prevent you from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not very friendly. What do you mean by "recent" edit patterns? Love treeofhope Thetreeofhope (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your addition of what can only be construed at this point of a hoax article, along with clearly non-constructive comments like "If it's on Wikipedia, it must be reliable!", as well as things like the bizarrely out of place appeal to Jimbo below, are what led me to believe you might be straying into vandal territory. If you are just that quirky, then fine, but the "dooby do" article must be deleted either way. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a hoax article. It's a genuine game, and everyone in my neighbourhood plays it at their parties. Thetreeofhope (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)