User talk:LevelCheck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hello, LevelCheck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Infrogmation 23:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SamuraiClinton RFA[edit]

What makes you think SamuraiClinton would make a good administrator? androidtalk 23:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • He has a lot of enthusiasm for the Wikipedia project, and he generally avoids edit wars and other destructive behavior. LevelCheck 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Next time you ask the person first, before nominating. :) Oleg Alexandrov 23:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, in the history of the adminship process, nominations or votes by anons have never been permitted, in contrast to your assertion that a username is "now required."

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


""valorize", which RJII took out because he didn't like it" ..I'm not the one who deleted it. It was Mqw. Check the record before you say something like that, slim. (RJII)

  • My bad. Since you fervently defended the removal of this statement on the Talk page and edit summaries, I assumed that you had removed it. Looking over the edit history, it appears I was incorrect. LevelCheck 20:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TfD listing[edit]

I removed your listing of Template:User fa-2. That is not gibberish, but Farsi. There is no reason to delete it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, LevelCheck. As now explained on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User fa-2, the template is part of Wikipedia:Babel, which users can use to indicate their fluency in various languages. For future reference, it is a good idea to check what links here before nominating a template, especially if you don't understand its purpose. Now that its meaning and purpose have been explained, I ask you to withdraw the nomination. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The nomination has been withdrawn for the reasons given. LevelCheck 20:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, LevelCheck. Don't worry; I once nominated something on VfD that I later withdrew too. We all learn from experience. And at the very least, this will bring some publicity to Wikipedia:Babel (I use it on es:, but it didn't exist on en: until recently). I've added it to my user page if you want to see an example of how these templates are used. — Knowledge Seeker 03:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The anon you reported for violating 3RR had an entirely vacant talk page – have you considered talking to him about it first? Chances are that as an anon, he had never even heard of the 3RR, and maybe didn't even know how to use a talk page yet. Next time you have issue with an anon committing 3RR, try to be sure that you take it up with him before reporting it. – ClockworkSoul 22:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: SuperDude115's article is on VFD[edit]

Regarding the reply that you put on User talk:Lucky 6.9: Since when did "article might have been created by User:SamuraiClinton" become a valid reason to put an article up for deletion?: All I will say is that you should read what I put on the VFD, which is a valid reason. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to post here exactly what I posted to your reply on VFD: That is your point of view LevelCheck. If you think the message I wrote, "I want to let you know that I just put up one of SuperDude115's articles, DOOM cheats, on VFD because I saw that you suspect that he may be SamuraiClinton " [1] implies that it is a "spite nomination" then so be it. The only thing I was doing was notifying them as a favor. As for the nomination itself, I think many people will agree with my original reason: Wikipedia is not a place to post cheat codes.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You also say that I am participating in a high-tech lynching. Isn't that what you did when you put SamuraiClinton on RFA? Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Zzyzx11. As others have pointed out, enthusiasm and avoidance of conflict are not sufficient for administratorship; in fact, SamuraiClinton chooses to regularly ignore conflict and criticism to his own detriment. The nomination was, at best, made without due diligence as to the nominee's contributions and true aptitude for administratorship; at worst, it was a malicious nomination intended to humiliate the nominee. You may defend the nomination as within your rights as defined by policy, but I think it was in bad taste. Any cursory examination of SamuraiClinton's contribution history and his talk history would have shown you that he has a history of disruptive and idiosyncratic edits, the most egregious example of which being the consensus-defying shutdown of the VfD nomination for the Autosexuality article. That action alone ought to disqualify him for administratorship, at least until he explains his actions, which he has not done. Many of the problems other editors have been having with him have been summarized in his RfC. If you weren't aware of the RfC, you couldn't possibly have been familiar enough with SamuraiClinton in order to make a good-faith nomination. If you were, then you chose to ignore the opinions of many experienced editors (some of whom are administrators themselves) when making the nomination. It is for this reason Zzyzx11, myself, and others can only view the nomination as made in bad faith as some sort of attempt at disruption or trolling; a high-tech lynching. androidtalk 02:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Poking dogs with sticks[edit]

Can I ask why you made this into a redirect? It seems rather inexplicable--nothing links there, and I can't imagine anyone searching for it. Meelar (talk) 00:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • It seemed like a good idea at the time. LevelCheck 00:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

High-tech lynching[edit]

I noticed you created this redirect just before you decided to make your comments about me on VFD. But don't worry, I'm currently working on expanding that article to make it a reasonable one. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Fine by me. The phrase is well-known enough in the American political lexicon that it deserves a full-fledged article. I didn't create this link for the purpose of attacking you, but rather because the situation brought the phrase to mind, I did a search, and since there was nothing there I redirected it to the article of the individual it was most closely associated with. LevelCheck 01:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

Please be aware of the three revert rule while editing Worst United States President in history; also, please know that, when listing an article on VFD, the user is instructed to include the full text of the VFD notice ({{subst:vfd}}) rather than just {{vfd}}). — Dan | Talk 03:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I count that you have reverted that article four times today. While I'm not going to block you since I don't know whether you were aware of the 3RR already, I suggest that you do not continue to revert this article, since it's not clear whether this is simple vandalism or a content dispute. — Dan | Talk
Thanks. — Dan | Talk 03:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phony Texan etc cat[edit]

Please stop inserting this into articles--I've emptied it and deleted it as vandalism. This is your final warning. Meelar (talk) 20:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


WP:POINT SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. Almost your entire contribution history is tantamount to childish vandalism. Please read Wikipedia policies and make some valuable contributions instead of playing games. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


Please note--I've also listed you Wikipedia:Requests for comment. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LevelCheck. Meelar (talk) 20:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit other's people's summaries on RfC. Even if you see what you think is a mistake, Meelar can fix it if s/he wants to. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

thank you :-) UDoN't!wAn* 22:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks rather like you meant to sign that comment as LevelCheck and accidentally did so as UDoN't!wAn*. Anyway, just stop your silliness. Don't you have better things to do?  :) — Helpful Dave 02:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a neutral party with no part in this dispute, it should be noted that, according to the history, UDoN't!wAn* actually did write that. Whether or not they may actually be a sock puppet for LevelCheck is another matter... Master Thief Garrett 03:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)'s vandalism[edit]

Golly, he strikes again! The first time it was just useless lines, but now it's true vandalism. Are you going to report him, or shall I? Or maybe we should wait until he strikes just once more... hmmm... Master Thief Garrett 01:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


You are adding nonsense, deleting valid material, and have made almost no useful contributions. This is to warn you that if continue in this way, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your edits count as vandalism. You're creating categories that are either offensive or POV magnets, or both. They are unencyclopedic and childish, as are your redirects. Please stop it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
That's not for you to judge. The bottom line is that we have established deletion procedures for a reason. What's the point of even having pages like WP:VFD, WP:RFD, and WP:CFD if loose cannons like you can just delete anything it strikes your fancy to? LevelCheck 03:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked Springmourning[edit]

My pleasure. Be sure to keep your own nose clean though. You've seem to have gathered some complaints yourself. Stay friendly and discuss disagreements. I'd be happy to inform you about any policy you need to know about. Good luck! Mgm|(talk) 22:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like someone else has already dealt with the user and the recreation. And it's great to hear you're making an effort. Don't hesitate to call for help if you need help. Cheers! Mgm|(talk) 22:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

RickK RFC[edit]

I have moved your vote to "Other users who endorse this statement", as I have not seen any evidence of you trying to resolve one of these or a related dispute with RickK. Of course feel free to move it back if you feel this was wrong (and preferably justify the move). --SPUI (talk) 00:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't list this for deletion again—discussion has been closed and the page is not to be edited again. It's also a pretty ridiculous thing to do considering how the result was overwhelmingly to keep and reject the nomination of TfD for deletion. There is no ground for deleting a record of that discussion, and the page is furthermore being used as a record in a proceeding regarding the nominator's misconduct. Postdlf 21:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Just to be clear, referring to people as "fascists" is well beyond the pale. Please, edit constructively--otherwise, I will be forced to request arbitration. I'd much rather that everyone learned to work with one another. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 23:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've requested arbitration after your creation of Izziehugger. Please direct any messages to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 20:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for his inappropriate name. Normally I would have asked him to change it, and that would have been an appropriate step for you to have taken before listing on RFC, but in this case the account has only been used to troll. Please remove your RFC as it's no longer needed.-gadfium 02:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, why did you make EPOR a redirect to Shadowgate? I don't see any connection. Please reply, as I wouldn't want to submit a valid redirect to rfd. Best, Meelar (talk) 03:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • There's an "EPOR room" in Shadowgate. Most people who have played through the game will remember it. LevelCheck 03:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not try to further your arguments on Wikipedia by creating articles. If you wish to make a point it should be done on the talk pages. Otherwise you are just creating a lot of work for people who have to clean up your articles. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Your recent template-related edits have been disruptive. If you continue to disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, you'll be blocked. Rhobite 23:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

You know exactly what you're doing; do it again and you'll get blocked. Rhobite 23:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your Sig[edit]

Hi! Ive made this [[Image:Levelchecksig.png|]] from a screenshot of your sig on WP:TFD - so you can use it in place of the table code. Once youve made your sig link show this image, you can have the image redirect here. Best, 04:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I have made the image smaller because it was as big as two lines of text and removed the colours that burned my eyes. Best, Sam Hocevar 11:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this policy just a joke that you came up with? If it is, maybe you should add it to Category:Wikipedia humor; otherwise, it would just be deleted. File:Rwl.gif File:Beammeup.gif File:Teleport.gif JarlaxleArtemis 01:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Removing comments[edit]

This community has given you far too much leeway already. If you edit another user's comment again, you'll be blocked from editing. It seems that your entire purpose here is to test the limits of other people's tolerance. Removing comments is unacceptable in almost all cases. Rhobite 01:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Netoholic[edit]

And I for my part will block you next time you revert an edit by Netoholic without good reason. Harrassing and taunting a user is totally unacceptable. --Bishonen | talk 05:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom injunction[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has placed you under a temporary injunction:

For demonstrated disruptive editing habits, LevelCheck is prohibited from editing outside his userspace and pages related to this case for the duration of the case.

- David Gerard 23:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case - final decision[edit]

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. This account is to be blocked indefinitely as a disruptive potential sockpuppet. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I have opened an arbitration request which involves you - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Crotalus horridus. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 640K ought to be enough for anybody, by (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 640K ought to be enough for anybody fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

dubious redirect, anyone looking for this will know about the Gates attribution

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 640K ought to be enough for anybody, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of High-tech lynching[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, High-tech lynching, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-tech lynching. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Big Dogs for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big Dogs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Dogs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfaced listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shitfaced. Since you had some involvement with the Shitfaced redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Class not registered listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Class not registered. Since you had some involvement with the Class not registered redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burning path of darkness listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Burning path of darkness. Since you had some involvement with the Burning path of darkness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That man in the White House listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect That man in the White House. Since you had some involvement with the That man in the White House redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]