User talk:Throw away zero divide

September 2014
Hello, I'm WadeSimMiser. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Zero Divide with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. WadeSimMiser (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zero Divide with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. WadeSimMiser (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Zero Divide with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. WadeSimMiser (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Zero Divide. WadeSimMiser (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. Connormah (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

is it possible for administrators to accept an unblock request?
In answer to the question at the head of this section: basically, no. Only a checkuser can review your unblock request. Yunshui 雲 水 09:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Deviant"? I beg your pardon? --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

i learned my lesson now.... -user:Throw away zero divide  Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)