User talk:DawgDeputy/Archive 1

Shopping Spree

Unfortunately, a testament by a sole editor isn't a sufficient source for the edit you're reverting. Do you have an episode number or date to add, or a video of the penalty being assessed only once? Also, because you saw it once doesn't mean it didn't happen, a certain number of times. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I know is that it occured in the 2nd season. And that was the only time I've seen it, AFAIK. WikiLubber (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Supermarket Sweep

Please stop adding trivia to the article. The sweaters have no bearing on what is a simple comment about parting gifts. It's like saying you keep your name tag as a parting gift from The Price is Right. You should also review this article: Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. But despite this, whether it's allowed on the page or not, whether it's trivia or not, it really is true, according to Ruprecht himself, anyway. WikiLubber (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

When I had reverted that edit earlier today I thought for some reason I had clicked on the Talk:Wheel of Fortune gameplay page instead of your actual talk page. I am very sorry for reverting the edit and adding to the confusion. Totally my fault! Sorry again! Sottolacqua (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings. And I'll keep THIS message, since this was your first apology to yours truly. WikiLubber (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

If you have been in edit wars before, which you have, you would understand the the three revert rule. You've been notified many times of the rule, four as far as I can tell with a quick look at your talk page history ([1][2][3]), yet continue to break it. If you continue, you will find yourself blocked, possibly for 24 hours, or longer due to consistent edit warring. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I got crazy, because nobody else would edit the bad ones. And I could not wait for it. (a majority of the users I was in edit war with were acting like vandals (combining multiple seasons into one is considered "vandalism", I believe)) WikiLubber (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the 3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism, but perhaps those cases weren't so obvious. Some editors may just be misinformed, which is why you should always assume good faith. Remember those warnings you got about edit summaries? Edit wars can be prevented simply by explaining why you reverted edits, which you seem to have started doing, which is great. Even the most experienced contributors can find themselves in an edit war (see Lame edit wars), but that doesn't mean edit wars should still happen. You've probably read this before, but I'll say it again. If you find yourself reverting an addition more than once, the best way to solve the issue is to add a message on either the other user's talk page, or the article's talk page and direct the other user there. You can sort things out. Also, don't revert the other user's edits while you are sorting things out. Just let it be until the issue resolves. If that doesn't work, or if you don't want to do that, you can always ask for a third opinion from another editor. If the third opinion sides with you, but the other editor still makes bad additions, you can always request admin intervention here (which, by the way, is where you can end up for edit warring). There should really be no reason to be caught up in an edit war if you follow those steps and keep a cool head. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And just another tip, you can always link to a policy or guideline. That's usually what I do whenever I revert a non-vandalism edit. For example, if an edition is controversial and doesn't have a source, in your edit summary you can always link to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, so the other editor can see exactly why you reverted their edits, and also make better ones in the future. The more detail, the better. No reason provided will make the other editor confused, and they will just re-add the info. New users typically don't have the greatest grasp on how Wikipedia works, so teaching them is best. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, this, I will NOT remove from my talk page. WikiLubber (talk)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super Mario Bros. (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What that other user was doing was providing unsourced and sometimes untrue information about the negativity of the film.WikiLubber (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And does that matter? If you read the page on the three revert rule, which I assume you have based on the fact that you have received many warnings about edit warring in the past and the fact that you removed the messages, which is your way of saying you've read and understand the message, you'll see that you cannot revert edits of any kind (except blatant and obvious cases of vandalism) in a given 24-hour period.

Also, just for your information, I'd like to inform you that you've been added to the Administrator's notice board for edit warring. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've sent a message to that other user so that he can stop. WikiLubber (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll add it to the report. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. And another thing. I also removed Super Mario Bros. (film) from my watchlist, because I cannot take it anymore, and I hope that someone really reliable (not the other user) can prevent other users from providing unsourced information. WikiLubber (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, you should try to resolve a dispute before you get engaged in an edit war. Edit warring, then talking about it after totally destroys the reason of talking about it in the first place. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, my report was a failure. ;) Sorry for any trouble, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings. WikiLubber (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

$500 One-Bid bonus on 1985 syndicated TPIR

Your latest edit works for me. JTRH (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Molto Grazie. WikiLubber (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On another subject, our anon friend on the Wheel page has now violated 3RR (having been warned earlier), and persists in not only re-inserting inaccurate information but leaving uncivil comments in edit summaries. I'm not sure of the admin procedure here. Wanna take a crack at an ANI? JTRH (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If I know how. WikiLubber (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that I don't. I know how to find the reporting board, but I can't figure out how to format the complaint. JTRH (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyway, here's source that the other guy is totally wrong. [4]

Alvin and the Chipmunks

Hi. I noticed your problem over at Alvin and the Chipmunks. I understand your position, but please be careful as you are may be in violation of WP:3RR. If the editor continues to make such edits, I would advise you not revert, but instead request an administrator have a look, and they will take the appropiate action in rectifying the situation. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, and I'm busy with other things. Someone has to take care of that for me. Besides, reverting is the only answer, as I cannot take it any longer. WikiLubber (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone report that other guy for vandalizing Alvin and the Chipmunks by adding entirely-false information?! I do not know how, for it is way too complicated. WikiLubber (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:StevenMario. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User_talk:68.211.221.233. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I do not see how the edits made by the anon. user are unconstructive; all they did was some rewording. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The re-wording they did was too harsh and unsourced. Also, I have no idea how to assume good faith. WikiLubber (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing "made" to "become", "As a result" to "resulting in", "Although" into "However, although", and "he" into "Hoskins" is, as far as I can tell, not harsh at all, and changing the wording doesn't need sourcing. And just reading the first paragraph, or even the first few sentences on Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith will give you an idea. Just assume that users are here to help the project, not hurt it. Only blatant edits that are obvious vandalism should be considered unconstructive. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I need a simpler solution. WikiLubber (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

These are simpler solutions. Most of these little editing wars you end up in could be easily prevented by simply stating (in a nice, calm tone) why you are reverting the edit in detail. Simply reverting without explanation, or just saying something like "Have not I warned thee?" or "Wrong again" won't get you anywhere. Looking at your edit history, I've noticed that when you don't explain why you have reverted an edit is where you most likely get pulled into a conflict. Whenever you do explain, you are less likely to.

For example, see one of my earliest edits. It was quickly reverted. The user who reverted my edit took the time to, first off, say my edit was good faith. That way I know they considered my edit and respected my contribution. Then they explained why exactly they reverted it, and said where to go for further explanation. We were all newbies at some point; just taking the time to explain why an edit was reverted would not only avoid a conflict, but also teach newcomers about policy and such. It may seem like a lot, but looking at it in perspective, it really isn't considering how many times you've had to revert others edits again and again over a simple disagreement over word choice. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean I should do it like this in an edit summary?:

(rv good faith edits by (user)) WikiLubber (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be good. Then continue to explain why you reverted it. "Unsourced" may be the reason, but give it some detail.

Example: (rv good faith edits by (user); Facts in biographies of living individuals should be verified with reliable sources)

This not only explains it, but provides links so the editor can read more on why you reverted. It'd also show that you didn't just make it up, and it is an official guideline. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you very much! (again) WikiLubber (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Good luck. (Leave me a message on my talk page if you have questions, or any other user for the matter) Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I second what SuperHamster said. When I rv something because someone got their facts wrong, I usually have an edit summary along the lines of "rv factual inaccuracy" or "rv unsourced assertion about..." And there are steps and procedures for warning vandals and others whose work isn't constructive for one reason or another. Arguing with people on edit summaries doesn't improve the work product or make people any easier to deal with. Done butting in now. JTRH (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Someone help me! I can't use the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ to report User:StevenMario for his disruptive edits. Is there another way to prevent this? WikiLubber (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

When he actually does WP:VANDALISM, by all means report him. Or feel free to reinstate your report, but I doubt it will get anywhere. -- Pakaran 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Double Dare (1976 game show). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|That was not an edit war. I only changed each of 65.27.107.211's different contributions once, and he did not bother to revert them back before you blocked me. That does not violate the three-revert rule yet. You should have warned me first. You are only jumping to conclusions. Second: I realize that the other user's edits on said article were actually constructive enough (he just did not provide an edit summary (he never does in any of his edits)). I only got carried away, because of his other disruptive posts.}} If you assure me the edit war is over, I will gladly unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I promise you, sir, it is over on that one, because I know I made a little mistake when I saw the other user's edits after I reverted them. And I will gladly revert them back to the way he had them (especially since they were among the IP user's few smart edits). Thank you very much! WikiLubber (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! And I promise to you, next time, I'll assume good faith when I make my edits. WikiLubber (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'll consider this an early Christmas gift from the Wikipedia community: My very first unblock! Now I know how an unblock feels. WikiLubber (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the block!

Good job! JTRH (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

The small, but effective, changes done to improve the grammar and tone of the Super Mario Bros. Super Show article is wonderful. I've been in a severe edit war with somebody who keeps changing and inserting the wrong info, and I've been trying to correct the info back to general tone. Thank you again! Coffee5binky (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mario Show

Thanks for the vandalism StevenMario keeps making. Do you know how to lock the article or anything, or report him as a vandal? I seem unable to make heads or tails of the rules on this sight. Anyways, I'm glad you and I are watching this article like a hawk. I appreciate what you are doing. Coffee5binky (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I only know how to lock it to prevent IP users from vandalizing. WikiLubber (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a start, as StevenMario has seemed to either been blocked or has yet to make his rounds to wrecking the article again. At least blocking his other IPs from editing is better than nothing, because it can prevent his sockpuppetry from continuing. Coffee5binky (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need to restore the article from vandalism, in the Discussion page, if nobody wrecks it, I posted the entire article there with the revisions we've made, so it should be a simply cut 'n' paste if that moron destroys the article again. Take care. Coffee5binky (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some progress as been made, as somebody finally acknowledge there's an edit war going on thanks to the moron User:StevenMario. Coffee5binky (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for using a sockpuppet to disguise your involvement in an edit war. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, after I am unblocked next month, that Lub-Dub-Man account is history and will never return. WikiLubber (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And another month's block will do me good. Besides, I deserve a much-needed rest after all that editing. I gotta give it a break for once. WikiLubber (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My, does the time fly. Of course, I have too much outside work on my mind, so I might not be doing much editing for a while even after the block. WikiLubber (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 3 Strikes (pricing game)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 3 Strikes (pricing game). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Strikes (pricing game). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Can't vote. I'm blocked here and occupied with outside work. Perhaps another time. WikiLubber (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stupid, thaats a bot, it won't reply to you. haha Shame, blocked! haha YOU FAIL!--Peparazzi (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clock Game

Please be careful when reverting edits by anon users. When you made this edit you reverted what was actually a correction to mislinked redirects. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse me. WikiLubber (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, why has this been reverted several times in the article Make Your Mark? Looks all right to me, considering that it is the article's name. Also, leave reasoning for reversion when it's not vandalism; it prevents edit wars, which is what seems to be going on again at the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, "Is" with a capital I is the proper way to format the word in the show's title. The individual pricing game articles are in the process of being AfD'd, anyway. JTRH (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. What's the point of reverting them again if they'll be removed, anyway? WikiLubber (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asking why WikiLubber was reverting the anon user's edits, not vice versa. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself. I got carried away. It happens. WikiLubber (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't help yourself to undoing other editors' constructive contributions? If you thought that it was unconstructive, that's fine, but if you're just undoing edits just for the sake of it, I'd take a break for a while. Anyways, I've restored the anon user's edit. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Telephone Game

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Telephone Game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone Game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Make Your Mark

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Make Your Mark. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Your Mark. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune merge proposal

Would you care to comment on this proposed merger? Talk:Wheel of Fortune (U.S. syndicated game show)#Merge proposal, part 2 Sottolacqua (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you, sir. WikiLubber (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick Arcade

Hello, DawgDeputy. You have new messages at Talk:Nick Arcade (game show).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, WikiLubber. I left my comments about the edit you undid on the talk page linked above. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

Hello DawgDeputy, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

You've got mail

Hi WikiLubber. Just a heads up: I've sent you an email. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Above section

While IPs shouldn't be giving established users level 4 warnings, check WP:BLANKING. Letting you know! Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Split Second (game show)

I've left a message on the IP user's talk page warning him/her about these continual reverts to Split Second (game show), as well as offering to help in getting the recordings s/he claims to have online. I figure that if the recordings are online, the IP user's changes will be much harder to refute.

So please stop the continual reverting, lest either or both of you get blocked and (perhaps) a true rarity goes away for good. Do you want any of that to happen? I know I don't. --Daniel Benfield (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You know I don't, either. WikiLubber (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I really didn't. But good to know. Sorry about that. :) --Daniel Benfield (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Block for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could use another break from Wikipedia. See you in 6 months. WikiLubber (talk) 19:05, 22 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I feel as if this week or so of being blocked has taught me a valuable lesson (especially on Wikiquote, thanks to user USDScott (is he on Wikipedia, too?)). I apologize for this. I realize that you are right. Sometimes articles need to WikiLink some certain words for the sake of readers to learn. Thank you, Cirt. I owe you one. If you give me one more chance, I'll make sure I do not ever use any multiple accounts again. If I do, that's it. 3 strikes, I'm out (a year's worth will do, since I will pay too much attention to my other web duties). Plus, the 2nd reason I have asked for this unblocking is because I have a lot of other business outside of most Family Guy articles to take care of. I can even try Wikilinking the important words of other articles if necessary. If you do not accept the unblocking, I completely understand. Thank you.

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 31 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is my second request for the unblock. I understand that what I did by using other IP addresses was totally wrong, and I also understand that some Wikipedia articles need Wikilinking on some vital words or phrases for reading purposes. I will not continue to cause disruption to any more articles. I will also try to Wikilink some words in articles in my watchlist. Again, if you decline this request, I understand. Thank you.

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.
I think you need a break - 6 blocks in a year, that's going some, and you have only got a 6 months block. You need the time to sit back and decide on your future editing habits. I would also suggest that if there are any sockpuppets that have not been discovered so far, that you declare them here sooner rather than us finding them later - they could end up coming to haunt you!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:25, 2 November 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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is my third request for an unblock. I really understand that using other IP addresses was against regulations, and I promise I will not do it again. I will make peace at articles and remember to assume good faith, as well. Thank you.

Decline reason:

At this point, after the number of prior sanctions, I find the strength of your promise to behave better to be significantly diluted. Let me direct you to Wikipedia:Standard offer as a means to rebuild your reputation. Jayron32 03:53, 20 November 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.

Nomination of Cliff Hangers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cliff Hangers 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/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination) 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 good 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. --Gh87 (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

YouTube

Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines for user-submitted video here: WP:YOUTUBE. It is not always inappropriate to link to YouTube. Links should only be removed if the file uploaded is a copyright violation. If the material is copyrighted but posted on the copyright or license holder's official channel (i.e., a video from CBS's channel about one of their shows), the video can be used as a reference. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Sottolacqua. I'll keep this in mind. But you know, all the ones I've undone were not from official channels. WikiLubber (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Chipettes

FYI, I blocked the user for 3½ days, but in the future you'd do well to leave a final warning. In general, it's a bad idea to block someone who hasn't received a recent final warning; this user was causing enough problems that I overlooked that stipulation, but if you don't issue a final warning before reporting, you have a much better chance of having the request denied. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind if the user continues with his disruptive edits. Thank you WikiLubber (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Starcade

I had included the article about Starcade in the category Television series by Warner Bros. Television because that show had been distributed by Turner Program Services, one of the companies WBTV parent Time Warner had later acquired as part of the purchase of Turner Entertainment. How is it that it does not qualify under that category, according to you? Creativity-II (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, WBTV did exist during that time period. You should not be removing legitimate edits just because they don't suit your personal taste. Creativity-II (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but in my experience, the standard practice is that only the company that actually produced the show at the time is listed. The fact that Production Company A was later acquired by Media Conglomerate B doesn't mean that a show produced by A years before the acquisition automatically becomes a Series By B. JTRH (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Warner Bros. Television was not owned by Time Warner until 1989, 5 years after Starcade was cancelled. Plus, it did not own Starcade back then. WikiLubber (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And thank you, JTRH, for bringing that up. WikiLubber (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)