Hello, The De-PROD Meister!Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check outGetting Help below, ask me onmy talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember tosign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in theedit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!Crusio (talk)17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial •Our five pillars •Getting mentored How to:Edit a page •Upload and use images •Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia •Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions •Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view •No original research Verifiability •Reliable sources •Citing sources What Wikipedia is not •Biographies of living persons List of policies •Three-revert rule •Sock puppetry Copyrights •Policy for non-free content •Image use policy External links •Spam •Vandalism •List of guidelines Deletion policy •Conflict of interest •Notability The community Build consensus •Resolve disputes Assume good faith •Civility •Etiquette No personal attacks •No legal threats Community portal •Village pump Signpost •IRC channels •Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing •Develop an article The perfect article •Simplified manual of style Stubs •Categories •Disambiguation Peer review •Featured content Miscellaneous User pages •Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up:General •Spam •Vandalism Join a WikiProject •Translation Useful templates •Tools •User scripts

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you think "fix it don't delete it" is a valid de-prod reason, but more usually, when deprodding an article you actuallydo something to address the problem that got the article prodded in the first place. Flooding AfD is not the solution. --Crusio (talk)17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account seems to have been created for the sole purpose ofWP:Pointy editing. If this behavior continues, you will be blocked.Toddst1(talk)17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you it has not, it is out of desire to make sure editors work is not needlessly thrown away.The De-PROD Meister (talk)17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be yourPOINT.Kansan (talk)17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I do contest those PRODS.The De-PROD Meister (talk)17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have beenreverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. Thank you.It appears that your edits meet the criteria of disruptive editing. Cease and desist immediately. -Realkyhick(Talk to me)17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not disruptive. As I have made clear, I do not believe that the pages in question should be deleted without a AfD discussion, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact theWP:PROD policy affords me that right. 17:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it's obvious that you carefully researched each and every case and took your time leasurely, only de-prodding 3 or 4 articles per minute... --Crusio (talk)17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let the admins decide this. I predict a block in fairly short order. -Realkyhick(Talk to me)17:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by serially dePRODding articles when you clearly haven't actually read them (the speed of the edits makes that clear) then you will be blocked indefinitely. I hope this is clear.Black Kite (t)(c)18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear from the rational that were given that it was one editors thinking that they should be deleted, in two cases no rational was given at all. So are you saying that I am not allowed to remove PROD notices ?The De-PROD Meister (talk)18:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youare allowed to remove PROD notices with a good rationale. You arenot allowed to disrupt the process by removing all the PROD notices you can find at high speed, thus proving you haven't actually read them. This is a violation ofWP:POINT. Not to mention the fact that a brand new user knew what PROD was within minutes of registering, but perhaps we'd better not go there ...Black Kite (t)(c)18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my user page, I make it very clear that I am a ex-IP editor of some time, up to now I have not had an account, rest assured I will make sure that I make my rationales clearer in the future.The De-PROD Meister (talk)18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better start would be to actually read the articles first. I can't think of a possible rationale for de-PRODding stuff likePillsbury Dunkables Contortion, for example, or more seriouslyany of the unsourced BLPs that you edited. Especially for the latter, doing that without avery good reason is inadvisable.Black Kite (t)(c)18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editng. Regardless of your justifications, this is a classic case ofWP:POINT, especially noting the timing of your edits and the PRODs themselves.PeterSymonds (talk)18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

The De-PROD Meister(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry but I was warned at 18:09 (which I disagreed with) following the warning I have been very careful to give full reasons for all the prods that have been removed seehere andhere. It is not my intention to be disruptive, just to make sure that these pages are not deleted without proper community consensus.

Decline reason:

There are many other PROD removals which really don't have a reason other than "Take it to AFD". No, this was quite clearly intentionally disruptive, aWP:POINT violation, and to be quite honest, PeterSymonds beat me to the block by only a few seconds, and I'm sure I'm not the only other admin that was about to block you.Shirik(Questions or Comments?)19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

The De-PROD Meister(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry but I was warned at 18:09 (which I disagreed with) following the warning I have been very careful to give full reasons for all the prods that have been removed seehere andhere. It is not my intention to be disruptive, just to make sure that these pages are not deleted without proper community consensus. As the first reviewing admin admits they were going to block me as well they are clearly an involved admin, I was warned by another admin, I took their advice, but the block is for actions that occurred before then, that is not just.

Decline reason:

You clearly caused disruption, seemingly to prove a point and that was clearly the only purpose of registering this account. I see no intent to edit constructively and therefore n reason to unblock.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

The De-PROD Meister (talk)19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell that from just a few hours - what a joke . So WP has just got another pissed off editor - back to editing via IP then.The De-PROD Meister (talk)19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we're only referring to you, I fail to see this as any form of net loss.HalfShadow19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was only wanting the traditional How Dare You Expect Me To Follow The Rules? rant. In my experience, the great majority of Pissed-Off Editors are ones badly disconcerted by the concepts that (1) they can't just do what they want, wherever they want, with complete impunity, (2) Wikipedia has rules and guidelines that apply to them too, and (3) the people who decide what those rules and guidelines mean aren't they themselves.  Ravenswing 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]