User talk:Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h

Time for Acknowledgement

Please review this warning and indicate your acceptance of it on WP:ANI ASAP. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours owing to this edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree with the block. I was a stupid. --MW talk contribs 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're easily smart enough to keep anything like this from happening again. If it does, the next block will most likely be indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But can you leave the block in 1/2 day, not one. Please. --MW talk contribs 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to post an {{unblock|reason}} tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2010 (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).

Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hate to do this again, because of that redirect. At least make the duration shorter.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (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.

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).

Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge the controversy that caused that redirection, that should had never been created, in act of the idiotic things I talk with the other people. Also, it's not necessary for just 1 vandalism. I will not continue to disrupt. --MW talk contribs 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A timeout will remind you of the seriousness of not joking about using articles. You got a Get Out Of Jail Free card the last time around, you shouldn't expect to get any more. henrik•talk 22:55, 15 January 2010 (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.

After all that discussion Gwen, and all the agreement to indef at the next problem, you jump in and block for 24 hours? Sigh, why do I bother. Tan | 39 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I told MisterWiki, if the next problem comes, the indef warning still stands. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why indef? Why not a year? The infinity is too much time. --MW talk contribs 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just 12 hours. :P --MW talk contribs 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a joke. If you are really asking for forgiveness, you'd take the "punishment". --ZooFari 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the "indef" warning should be revoked. I already have editing restrictions and that's enough. --MW talk contribs 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Far from it - any more crap from you and I'm gonna pull the trigger on that indefinite block, which I imagine will be a de facto ban from Wikipedia. I realize I'm probably poking the bear a bit here, but cut it out. Or, if your goal is to prove a point, go ahead and prove it and let's get this over with. Tan | 39 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying tho, Gwen, is that we had it under control. Decisions had already been made, the warning issued, the situation was relatively stable. Then you decided to jump into the situation and issue some sort of punishment for what already happened - and really, that's what it is, you aren't preventing anything if he's going to be indeffed at the next disruption anyway. I'm not going to revert this, but I want you to know I find this a very poor decision and quite honestly, you're stepping on toes here. Tan | 39 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He was taunting y'all. Two unblock requests have been declined, please feel free to lengthen the block to indef if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Look, perhaps something good will come out of this for you. Perhaps you'll learn something from this. But Wikipedia is not a game. You are either here to help build an encyclopedia or you should not be here at all. I learned that the hard way. Just take the advice of the others and back down. I doubt that you'll be unblocked this time.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The 144 articles I have created will tell you how do I want to help build an encyclopedia, Coldplay expert. Sometimes the admins doesn't think on the good intentions may I or another user have, that's unfair, because it makes them a specie of nazi. That can't continue. We are here to help, not to destroy this place. I know I disrupt sometimes, but tell me, didn't you disrupted sometimes to your mom or your teacher or whoever else?. Think on it. --MW talk contribs 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are insulting administrators here after you have done something stupid. Please retract. --ZooFari 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we wait for him to retract? He obviously just blew his very last super duper really this time chance.--Crossmr (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no system where you can trade good contribs to excuse disruption. I'd agree with Gwen above, even after being blocked you're still playing games. I'd also support a much longer, lost in time block.--Crossmr (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny how everyone never capitalizes the last part of my name. And MW, there is no excuse for your actions. No policy states that bad behavior can be traded away based off of good contribs. Just take a look at Ottava's page.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki, I have blocked you for the next ten years for calling admins Nazis while already on the very edge of your welcome. Please use the time wisely. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I have time :). That's not what I tried to mean, I tried to say that the admins are very cruel and evil sometimes, not that they are nazis, because that's an exaggeration. --MW talk contribs 04:01, 17 January 2010 (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).

Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per above. I am sorry and it was really a stupid thing I said, but I explained it. There's no excuse for my moronic behaviour.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:35, 17 January 2010 (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.

Sorry dude. I've made the same comparison and recieved a block from it. Likely you will be blocked for a while....Most likely not ten years but you never know...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I said that a bit angry because of the 24 hours block, but that the admins are nazi? I don't meant that. I explained it. --MW talk contribs 04:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've done two stupid things in about 24 hours. How many stupid things do you plan to do, and then try to apologize your way out of? Based on the ANI discussion cited above, it is getting harder and harder to assume good faith on your part. Either you are here to screw around, or you lack the competence to recognize what appropriate behavior is. I am about to decline the above unblock request, at least for a little while. I really think that, based on your recent behavior, Wikipedia would benefit from your absense, at least for a little while longer. However, I would like to see what assurances you can make that these problems will not happen in the future. How about you propose some restrictions you would be willing to place on yourself. What will you do to stop these problems from continuing to crop up? --Jayron32 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no more comments about nobody. And staying away from the user talk pages, Jayron. Please trust me, this time I will really not get you down. Please. I pray to you. I swear to you. --MW talk contribs 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This block is not necessary to prevent me to do that. I know what to do, I can think, I can argue. --MW talk contribs 04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: If unblocked, you will voluntarily stay away from the User talk space, and you will also voluntarily refrain from commenting about other users at all. Is that correct? I am willing to begin an unblock discussion at ANI with these terms if that is what you are agreeing to. I would also like to add Civlity parole to your restrictions. If you were to violate these restrictions, we will return your indefinate block. This needs to be understood as a last chance. If you can agree to this, I will initiate the discussion on these restrictions. --Jayron32 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(Crying) I agree, except for things that I would need, like to request things to users. --MW talk contribs 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Communicating with other users is a fundamental part of the Wiki collaboration. Completely object this ridiculous restriction. --ZooFari 07:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's rather like allowing somebody to participate in the 100 meters on the condition you can cut off their legs. MisterWiki, you said you didn't mean the admins were nazis. You called the admins Nazis! You're either trolling us or not competent and mature enough to contribute here. Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2010 (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).

Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Under the condition to not disturb anymore. This block is not necessary for the redirect and the insult, since that's not what I meant. Anybody can get wrong sometimes. This is really annoying to request unblocks each 12 hours, but I, voluntarilly agreed the conditions that Jayron gave me. Anyways, if the block is shortened to 1 year, after the year I will retire.

Decline reason:

No way, you had your chance. However, there is a proposal on my talk page on how you might be given another chance, provided the rest of the community agrees. Your best hope is to see if anything comes of that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:29, 17 January 2010 (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.

I just want to concentrate on the things I like. Please re-consider it. A day was too much. I know what to do, exactly. I know certain user wants me blocked forever, but I just want to be back to finish some things I left, like Pichilemu, Thomas Anders v. Dieter Bohlen, and WP:TALKING. Thank you. --MW talk contribs 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use the {{helpme}} template for requesting unblocking.  fetchcomms☛ 19:44, 17 January 2010 (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).

Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't see that Vandalism: Calling admins Nazis whilst already blocked, and very shortly after an indef was removed. should be a block of 10 years. I know it was a idiotic thing to call them nazis, but the block it's not necessary to prevent me to damage the community. Oh my god, what more can I do. I just want to be back to fulfill the things I left incomplete. Well, this is the last time I will request unblock. I will not going to disturb you anymore if you are going to decline the unblock request. I really don't have anything more to say. This is really annoying to provoke troubles to you all, here and in the ANI. I don't promise anything, I just want to fulfill the things I left. --MW talk contribs 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Put quite simply, you blew your final chance. We won't be prepared to offer you another one for a long while. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (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.

Please stop repeated requests for unblock, it doesn't help you any. My advice would be to come back in a few months and I'm sure nobody will have a problem. However, if you place another unblock notice - which at this point serves only to waste time - I will modify your block so that you cannot edit your talkpage. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I said that I was not going to post it again. --MW talk contribs 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Come back in late April or early May. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins, I apologize my idiotic behaviour and treating you as 'nazis'. That's very offensive and I shouldn't had to said that. My apologies. --MW talk contribs 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked means no editing and no pretty talk pages, your talk page is now here purely to facilitate any future unblock requests. You lost your editing privileges and any right to have a pretty user talk page when you were blocked, you only get all that back if/when you're unblocked. Nick (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, declined unblock requests should remain visible whilst the user is blocked - so restored with the rest of the thread. The other stuff I don't really have an opinion on way or the other. –xeno^talk 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, my sincere apologies to the admin I offended and the rest of the community of Wikipedia because of that unexplained situation I did in mid-January. I promise that if I comeback here, I'll go back to build articles, specially to Pichilemu, an article that I hope sometime will be a FA, and to get Modern Talking to GA. It was really an idiotic thing to say that you, a jewish admin, were nazi. I know it is very offensive. My great-grandfather itself was killed in Germany because he was jewish, in the World War II. I really need to comeback, it is the best thing I've ever found on the net, and a space to show everybody my knowledge. Again, my apologies. --MW talk contribs 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• In light of our email conversations and what you've written above, I've opened a thread at AN (and copied your statement there), linked if you want to have a look. I really hope this turns out well. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --MW talk contribs 18:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:3 originals (Rick Astley album).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:3 originals (Rick Astley album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note about WP:SIGNATURES

I realize you are indef blocked, but I think you should know. I know you meant well, but this edit was not at all helpful. I replaced the picture with something that was smaller, easier to read, and drew attention to what was being talked about. It isn't about 'whose picture is there' like you seem to think, but what makes it easier for the reader.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GrtHitRick.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GrtHitRick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Luis Rodriguez.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Luis Rodriguez.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tom, my kitten.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tom, my kitten.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Villa Los Navegantes major revamp

Villa Los Navegantes The Navigators
Neighbourhood
Houses in the Los Navegantes neighbourhood.
Pichilemu map. Pichilemu map.
Country	Chile
Region	O'Higgins
Provinces	Cardenal Caro Province
City	Pichilemu
Established	1996
Government
• Administrative body	Municipality of Chile
• Mayor	Roberto Córdova
Area
• Total	1.7 km2 (0.7 sq mi)
Elevation	35 m (115 ft)
Population  (2010)
• Total	200

Los Navegantes (Template:Lang-es; roughly translated as Los Navegantes Neighborhood) is a residential neighbourhood in the south-east of Pichilemu, Chile. It is located near the Municipal Stadium and La Cruz Hill. Los Navegantes boasts a perimeter of approximately 1.5 km and was founded between 1996-1997 and has a court.

History

The village was founded in late 1997, after 5 years constructing approximately thirty houses. It is the first neighborhood in Pichilemu that was founded in the 1990s.

Demographics

The neighborhood has an estimated population of 200. The majority of the adults in the neighborhood are teachers or laborers in the municipality.

Education

The neighborhood has one school, Charly's School. It is located near the neighborhood.

See also

• Pichilemu

Category:Pichilemu

Re: Villa Los Navegantes

The latitude still has a number greater than 60 in it. Is that a mistake? —Soap— 01:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. --MW talk contribs 01:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User renaming

I'm requesting user rename from MisterWiki to Diego Grez, because I'm requesting it through all the Wikimedia wikis. Thanks in advance. --MW talk contribs 02:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding your block and your renaming request here. Since you can't reply there, please read the information there and then post your comments here. I will then paste them over to that discussion for you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, my block was my very own fault. I'll tell you my history from my point of view. I started editing here, I don't remember why, adding false information about me on Diego Grez. I admit I liked Hannah Montana at the time, but I don't know why that spamming thing. I was 11 and after some time, I decided to back for good, doing good things and trying to fulfill my past. I left the wiki for a year and some, until I've got my own Internet connection on my home. I thought that my case was forgotten and even I tried to appeal my unblock on es.wiki. (Regarding the comment of someone at ANI, I was blocked previously on these wikis and I wanted to request here and so on). I've emailed an steward that gave me an opportunity (an unblock request at the village pump over there). It lasted in the third week of December because no admin unblocked me. The things went fine until my rollback was removed because of misuse, something I admit. I tried to expand the most I would Pichilemu, because I wanted it to get (at least to) GA, as it is one of my most-known topics before the History of Chile and Modern Talking. Piss-on-elmo and calling the admins nazis was the thing that caused this block, and I thought it was going to be shorter, and it was my fault. Since that, I tried to do the things better, on Wikinews (where I am accredited reporter) and on Simple Wiki, in addition to the Spanish Wikinews, the Latin Wikipedia, English Wiktionary and the Chamoru Wikipedia, a wiki that is almost forgotten. Additionally, I saw that my other account, Bodoque57, was not blocked on Commons, and I requested block on IRC. On Wikinews, my contributions about the recent Chile earthquake have been very appreciated and the community has been very, hmm, good. As it is not Wikinews, Wikinoticias, Wiktionary or Vicipaedia, I come here to ask you, Wikipedians, to unblock me, I want to show you that I have matured through all this time and I don't want to get in troubles anymore. The earthquake thing has helped me to mature more than I thought and you'll forget this very, very soon. I won't let you down, I promise as a good boy. --MW talk contribs 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

PD. I don't have bad feelings against those people that blocked me or helped to do this, I know it was for good for Wikipedia and for myself too. --MW talk contribs 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot that on IRC, I've got a bot running as Pitsilemu, for Wikinews, if that can be considered of help. --MW talk contribs 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)