User talk:Cold465

Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 22:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Carly'sAngels Controversy, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Carly'sAngels Controversy was changed by Cold465 (u) (t) deleting 20719 characters on 2009-09-22T04:09:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Carly'sAngels Controversy. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Carly Smithson, you will be blocked from editing. DCmacnut <> 04:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie Smokey--Cold465 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Smithson fansite controversy[edit]

Please stop adding this fansite controversy to Carly Smithson's article. The controversy is not notable and Smithson is not directly involved in the controversy, so it does not belong on her article. Any further adding of this information could be seen as vandalism. Aspects (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Carly Smithson. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Aspects (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Carly Smithson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Carly Smithson was changed by Cold465 (u) (t) score equals -134244 on 2010-04-22T21:38:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Carly Smithson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cold465 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have taken six years to think about what I did and i realize what I did was wrong. And with that in mind I think I'm ready to be trusted again

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Jauerback:, I'm considering extending a 2ndchance to this user, given the length of time which has passed. Any objections? --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After six years? Nope. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Cold465, my unblock decline states, "Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies." That's because I used a standard template. While I wouldn't accept trivial edits, I want to expressly state that I would accept edits that fall somewhere higher than "trivial" and somewhere lower than "significant". Once you've made your edits and have requested an unblock again, either myself or another administrator will review them. --Yamla (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]