User talk:The De-PROD Meister

{{Welcomeg/links}}

|}

|}

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think "fix it don't delete it" is a valid de-prod reason, but more usually, when deprodding an article you actually do 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)

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

: 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)

::That seems to be your POINT. Kansan (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

25px Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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)

: 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 the WP: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)

::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)

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)

: 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)

:: You are allowed to remove PROD notices with a good rationale. You are not 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 of WP: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)

::: 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)

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

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

{{unblock reviewed|1=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 see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Barr_(Kentucky)&diff=prev&oldid=390111790 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guoray_Cai&diff=prev&oldid=390112922 here]. It is not my intention to be disruptive, just to make sure that these pages are not deleted without proper community consensus.|decline=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, a WP: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)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1=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 see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Barr_(Kentucky)&diff=prev&oldid=390111790 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guoray_Cai&diff=prev&oldid=390112922 here]. 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=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)}} The De-PROD Meister (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

:Considering we're only referring to you, I fail to see this as any form of net loss. HalfShadow 19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

: 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)