User talk:Spritor

Hello Spritor, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dan Dougherty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

k thanks Spritor (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Please think through what is needed before applying article improvement tags. The ones you used are either not all appropriate or are overlapping/redundant to each other. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

read the article and check tags to make sure it l ines up with the issues. Spritor (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

but i do see ur reason of the prose tag being removed so thanks Spritor (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, none of the tags you added were applicable. I have removed most of them. I've left the notability tag there as a merge discussion will determine that. And speaking of the merge discussion, you added a merge tag yet you have not started any sort of discussion to explain why you think a merge is needed. The onus is on you to start the discussion if you think a merge is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Whpq (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Spritor (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Disruptive would mean that I'm making comedic/crass edits to articles.. Where do you see that at? Am I vandalizing Wikipedia? No, I'm removing edits that do NOT need to be made. The editor is simply ragebaiting. I need to be unblocked so I can place him on the noticeboard/file a sock case.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address your disruptive editing Whpq (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

it's honestly sad the other editor hasn't been blocked for edit warring lol, if you don't intervene i'll ask a beaurcrat to deal with you Spritor (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you have a Personal vendetta against me as seen at User:Yankees10. Clear edit war starter gets to continue editing Wikipedia. Spritor (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You edited another editor's comments, and restored talk page material that they are allowed to remove. This comes immediately after your previous block expired. Your next block may end up being an indefinite one if you keep up this disruptive behaviour. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

they are blatantly casting aspersions and you're doing absolutely nothing about it. you're ridiculous. Spritor (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

keep up your personal vendetta Spritor (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking through their contribs, I'm not seeing very many productive edits. It's almost entirely poor behavior at AFDs (, ) or casting aspersions and general uncivil behavior towards other editors (,, , that last one is all of the above). It seems to me an indef would be warranted but I suppose WP:ROPE applies. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Threatening to bring an editor to ANI because she did deletion sorting without a !vote is pretty egregious. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• This user also left rather rude comments towards me in an AfD discussion, I have to wonder what's going on, but a block does not surprise me. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Spritor,

You have only been editing Wikipedia for two weeks and you've already been blocked twice. If you don't make a drastic change in your attitude and behavior, you will soon be indefinitely blocked. At this point, it doesn't matter whether you or other editors are right or wrong in an argument. Don't get lost in the details, just realize that you have to do a complete about face and handle problems differently or you will soon be shown the door. The point now is not who was correct in a dispute, it's whether or not you wish to continue to edit here. If you do want to be an editor, drop the stick and when your block is over, do whatever is necessary to stay out of disagreements. It's up to you.

If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and guidelines when your block is over, bring them to the Teahouse. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

might aswell give me a last chance per WP:ROPE Spritor (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

i will never do it again Spritor (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

also, dont know why a non admin is intervening with this.. they have the same amount of power on the english wikipedia as me and they are acting like an admin Spritor (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

and why is the lilly contino article back.. Spritor (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

yeah-- yk what. Wikipedia is a mistake. the article was deleted because the majoirty voted to delete it and a removed a7 tag led to the article being brought back to life Spritor (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

look at the wasianpower girl's user page, her life is devoted to wikipedia instead of doing her job she just edits wikipedia lol Spritor (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

you gave me a block for 1 week over tags and the brock purdy edit war that was started by yankees10 Spritor (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Spritor (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC) everything i said above Spritor (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is clear that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia and thus are now indefinitely blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

he literally called me a banned user on the brock purdy thing and he removed my edit. He's still edit warring and you guys don't give a damn about it Spritor (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

i need to be unblocked so i can file some sock cases against some people because yankees10 and wasianpower may definitely have a sockpuppetry account. Spritor (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is now a checkuser block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Hello, Spritor,

As long as you are consumed with getting back at editors you think have misbehaved or wronged you, you will never be an unblocked editor in good standing here. The project is the most important thing here, not keeping score with other editors or seeing who you can get blocked. As long as you see Wikipedia as some kind of game, with winners and losers, you have no place here. This is a collaborative editing project and if you can't get along with others, you don't belong here. Good luck finding other activities on the internet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)