User talk:Moxhay

Welcome

Hello, Moxhay, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not even edited and I get a strange thing when I try to edit hat talks about "Checkuser evidence". What does that mean and could somebody please let me edit? Moxhay (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to a long history of abuse, I will not be able to unblock your IP address at this time. If you wish to make a further appeal, please see WP:UTRS. —DoRD (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2016 (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.

@DoRD: This user contacted us on IRC, too, so I told him I'd ping you. I see that the school ip block was yours; 2 times this year it started as a soft block and was upgraded to a hard block, so I'm guessing some serious abuse is/was going on. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal ticket

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Moxhay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16776 was submitted on Oct 25, 2016 16:46:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For non-admins

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I have been trying to edit from both of of my school's ip's. One of then gives a message about a checkuser block, while the other gives info about a school block. I hunted around to an irc channel. Slakr responded. He sent me to DoRD and he said that he could not unblock me and he said "Due to a long history of abuse, I will not be able to unblock your IP address at this time. If you wish to make a further appeal, please see WP:UTRS", sending me here. I have not done any disruption and wish to edit Wikipeidia peacefully.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

I intend to edit whatever typos I can find.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

I was explained that there was a long history of abuse at the IP adresses that I am trying to edit from. On my talkpage slaker said that: "I see that the school ip block was yours; 2 times this year it started as a soft block and was upgraded to a hard block, so I'm guessing some serious abuse is/was going on.".

Speedy deletion nomination of Peterman Bus

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Peterman Bus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick, Maine

There is no need to separate out the list of notable people. Most smaller cities maintain the list of notable people as an integral part of the article. Unless the list grows TOO long, it doesn't need a separate article. (For example, see Huntington, New York#Notable people. Even though a much larger list, it is still maintained within the article.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Androscoggin River template

I have restored the list of towns within the watershed. It isn't simply the towns along the river, but all the towns in the river's drainage basin. I have found many readers don't know where the runoff from their town of interest drains; and this information is important for determining upstream pollutant sources. If, for example, a railcar of toxic chemicals derailed in Greenwood or Woodstock, what other Wikipedia information reveals which downstream communities might be affected if the toxic chemicals spilled? Thewellman (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Portland, Maine page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]