User talk:Bringbackthetylers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Journey's End (Doctor Who). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Journey's End (Doctor Who), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You must list a source. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hello. Please re-read the following pages before editing Wikipedia again... you ignored the warnings above.

If you've any questions, please ask or type {{helpme}} on this page and someone'll be along to explain. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional, final warning

Please take time to think through your edits before you make them. Many of your recent contributions have been interpreted as disruptive, and you're on pretty thin ice. Watch your step; disruption may well be met with a block. Consider this a final warning against future disruptive editing. Regards, Anthøny 12:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

This edit to Supporting Harry Potter characters was contradicted by the references that followed the text you added. You have been repeatedly warned not to add unsourced material. We welcome contributions, but only if they are sourced. To prevent further additions, at least until you have had time to consider the verifiability guidelines:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're 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.

—C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeating the same pre-block edits

You were blocked for introducing unsourced information to articles. Your first edit after the block expired was another introduction of dubious information. You must provide reliable sources to back up edits that you make. Otherwise, you risk your account being blocked again to prevent you from making further inappropriate edits. —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to List of Torchwood episodes has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Likewise, we do not delete major characters in any television program who die-even if they are dead. Looking at the above, I'd advise you get to know some rules & customs otherwise your next block is likely to be your last. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruptive editing. You've been warned on numerous previous occasions, and clearly haven't leranred from those or your previous block.. Please stop. You're 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.

--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "All I did was add broadcast dates to forthcoming Doctor Who episodes which were sourced, add Freema Agyeman as a current companion which she IS considered as for her three-episode stint and begin to update information on the second series of Sarah Jane which is also sourced."

Decline reason: "You're not understanding the problem: Sources must be both reliable and verifiable by anyone. You've been ignoring repeated warnings and blocks, and avoiding discussing the matter with other editors. This behavior is disruptive, and unless you can demonstrate that you understand why your previous edits were unacceptable, you will not be unblocked. In addition, please stop posting multiple unblock templates. You are able to post on this page without using the template, and only one is needed to get an admin to review your block. Continued abuse of the template may lead to this page being protected. -Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Note to admins: the source is not verifiable as it is a magazine which is not yet out (tomorrow to subscribers; Friday to retail outlets - [1]). This user has ignored more warnings than are listed here, without so much as a reply before now. He is remorseless and I would not unblock at all! —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|The magazine is out. I have it right here in front of me.}}

Maybe true (I'm not sure, honestly) but info must be verifiable - other users must be able to check it. And if you're privileged to have an advance copy, that's no use. It's not much different to saying "My dad the Prime Minister told me, but it won't be announced until next month." —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I'm subscribed to this magazine and occasionally it comes early, I'm sure another subscriber could back me up and may end up making exactly the same edits themselves. And anyway, I wouldn't make up information that I didn't have a source for.}}

Please read my comment above. You are required to list a verifiable source. Almost none of your many edits have done this. You have been incivil in not replying to messages and in ignoring blocks, and please stop adding lots of {{unblock}} templates to this page. Thank-you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Fine I'll not bother trying to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. All these rules and "verifiable source" nonsense are beyond a joke. I and hundreds of other subscribers know this information is true and verified.}}

To be honest, you've not contributed so far, you've only caused disruption and trouble! If you don't like our policies that information is clearly true - on an encyclopedia - then feel free to take your great writing talent elsewhere! —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)