User talk:Disney09

Welcome!

Hello, Disney09, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Cast List of Camp Rock, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! AJUK ^Talk!! 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Cast List of Camp Rock[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. AJUK ^Talk!! 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Cast of Camp Rock.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Cast of Camp Rock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Cast of Camp Rock.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Cast of Camp Rock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Cast of Camp Rock.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Cast of Camp Rock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 Ponytail, 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: Ponytail was changed by Disney09 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-01-23T21:34:44+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for the inconvenience I've caused to that article. It was a complete internet crash and computer glitch. Disney09 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cathy burton[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cathy burton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unnotable character

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ViperSnake151 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Snow White (Disney Princess )[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Snow White (Disney Princess ), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

duplicates information from article on Disney Film as well as the disambiguation page.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rtphokie (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of of Princess Odette[edit]

A tag has been placed on Princess Odette, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

no citations are provided, and no context or explanation of the subject's importance is given

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cactusjump (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Odette (Swan Princess Character)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Princess Odette (Swan Princess Character), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.h33t.com/details.php?id=8a876de1040c9403143a0cf2fcc1fb649d3ddac4. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding unsourced POV to your favorite stars' pages[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not your personal website to lavish praises on your favorite celebreties. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I don't use Wikipedia to lavish praises on my favourite celebrities. I have been in the musical and show business for quite some time, and I know what I'm talking about when I post...making myself a reliable source. By the way, I'm the creator of the following successful article Anya/Anastasia (character). Disney09 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

RE: Julie Andrews, Anneliese van der Pol, Anne Hathaway (actress) and others
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. This may also be considered original research, see WP:OR. Please stop adding dancer or singer to their biography, not all actors are "dancers" or "singers", these are very specific occupations.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know all actors are not dancers or singers...but Julie Andrews has danced in many of her films, Ms. Van Der Pol has danced on Broadway for Beauty and the Beast's "Belle", and Anne Hathaway sang in her movie "Enchanted".Disney09 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

About Jennifer Hudson and Jordin Sparks
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
This is considered original research. Aspects (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing versus dancer, singing versus singer, etc.[edit]

I see you're getting some flack on various articles and keep being warned for similar things. Since I see you are acting in good faith, I thought I'd try to help you to understand why your edits keep getting reverted. I went through your edit history and you keep adding adding professions to various stars' articles like "dancer" or "singer". While I understand why you are doing it, I'm trying to show you why it's not appropriate.

The introduction line for famous people should say what their profession is and why they are famous. Yes, Anne Hathaway sang in a film, but she is not a singer. Her profession is not in singing. She does not get paid to sing. She has not written any songs, she has not released any albums, she does not have a vocal teacher, she is not signed under any music managers or production companies or anything else.

The same goes for Julie Andrews. Julie Andrews may have danced in a film or two, but she is not a dancer. She does not perform in ballet, nor is she an award-winning hip hop dancer, nor is she a famous back-up dancer. She may have danced once or twice in her films, but her profession is actress, not dancer.

I'm sure President Obama has sung the national anthem, but that doesn't make him a singer, now does it? The point is that doing something, does not make your profession that something. If you go down that line of thinking, Anne Hathaway's professions could also include walker, runner, talker, breather, etc. Yes, those are laughable, but the point remains. Just because she does something in her film does not mean that it is her profession. She is an actress that occasionally sings in her films, but she is not a singer, and it is certainly not what made her notable. The best place to put information regarding her singing is in the appropriate section of her article relating to the film she sang in (for example, in the Anne Hathaway article, there is already mention of her singing two songs in the film, in the appropriate section, which is more than sufficient).

Since you keep adding these designations in despite the warnings you've received, I think, in the future, you need to just avoid adding professions to various actors' articles altogether unless you can accompany it with a source that explicitly states it (for example, "Anne Hathaway is a singer" (which, by the way, produces no results on Google)). If you think someone is something, you should bring it up on the talk page for the actor, gain a consensus, and let someone else add it in. I think many users are starting to find your edits disruptive and I'm afraid you may be blocked if you continue down that path. I know this is long, but I wanted to be thorough. I hope I've helped. If you need more help, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. --13² 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still blurring the lines. Anne Hathaway did not get paid to sing. She got paid to act. Singing was a part of the script, but it was not the job she was paid to do. The job she was paid to do was act according to the script, which just happened to include singing. That does not make her a singer. That makes her an actress that sang in one of her films. The same goes for Zac Effron. It was a part of his acting script, not his profession.

Like I mentioned above, President Obama has most definitely sang the national anthem. His job, however, is President of the United States, not singer, even though singing the national anthem is an expected and required part of his job.

Look at it from the other side. Taylor Swift is, without a doubt, a singer, not an actress. She gets paid to sing, she writes songs, she goes on tour to sing them, she has won awards for her singing, etc. She also "acts" in her music videos. That does not make her an actor though because she's getting paid to sing for the video and part of that deal is that she also plays some character in it. However, if, in the future, she were to star in a Hollywood film, "actress" could be listed as her profession as well because she would have been paid to act, whether or not that role included singing. --13² 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actor/actress[edit]

FYI, this edit was unnecessary. Actor is a gender neutral term. It applies to both males and females. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting in infoboxes[edit]

It is not correct to capitalize each word in the profession and genre lines in an infobox: "Actor, singer, dancer", not "Actor, Singer, Dancer"; "Pop, rock, soul", not "Pop, Rock, Soul".—Kww(talk) 22:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running out of patience[edit]

Nearly every edit that you make has to be undone. You need to learn what you are doing, or you will be blocked based on imcompetence. Let's go through today's editing point-by-point so that you stand a chance of learning from your mistakes:

This change. You have already been informed that you shouldn't capitalise that way: "Camper, singer, songwriter, dancer", not "Camper, Singer, Songwriter, Dancer". That ignores the problem that the character is not a profession singer, songwriter, or dancer, and that "camper" is not, nor has ever been, a profession. Where did that title come from? "Diva of Camp Rock"?
Here "The Diva of Camp Rock" is no better: an imaginary title is an imaginary title.
Here you used an unsupported infobox field. It had already been hanging around from some previous vandalism, but you didn't bother to check your edit and correct it. I find a good third of your edits are adding and editing imaginary infobox fields.

I can tell that you want to edit properly, but patience is wearing thin. You need to start making edits that are worth keeping, or your editing privileges will be revoked.—Kww(talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS[edit]

WP:NSONGS is the guideline that indicates when a song warrants an individual article. In short, to get an article, a song must have charted, received an award, or had versions performed by multiple notable artists. Me, Myself and Time hasn't done any of those things. Don't undo the redirect again until it does.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization again[edit]

"Singer, dancer", not "Singer, Dancer" as you once again did here.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music genres[edit]

Could you please take a moment to read WP:GWARRIOR... as I believe it applies to at least 1, 2, 3, 4 of your current top edits, along with several other similar edits of yours that I've spotted over the past week or so. Genre warriors are considered disruptive and eventually get blocked from editing, especially when they leave behind long trails of ambiguous links like you've been doing. Please think of this as a friendly "heads up" reminder, but now that I know you've been informed, I will be tagging you for disruption if I see this unfavourable editing pattern continue. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Usher (entertainer), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Charice Pempengco, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered vandalism. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at There's Got to Be a Way, you may be blocked from editing. -- WikHead (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Celine Dion edits[edit]

I appreciate you trying to help the article, Celine Dion. It's nice you have an interest. However, you need to be aware of what you edit. The genres and associated acts you added are not all encyclopedic, and creating a laundry list of people and things doesn't make the article any better, or more reptuable. You also need to be aware of WP:3RR, which you have already violated. If you have any questions about edits, use the talk page, first. If you continue to ignore the policies of Wikipedia, I may be forced to contact an administrator, which I really, really don't want to do, because I believe you are trying to help with the article. Thank you. BalticPat22 Patrick (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for chronic guideline violations. I see from your talk page that multiple editors have been pleading with you to stop changing genres without sourcing, to stop changing associated acts, to stop changing professions, and to stop changing other things without sources. I don't see any sign that you have acknowledged these concerns. You are blocked until you agree to respond to other editors' concerns, and show that you have an understanding of the fields in {{infobox musical artist}}. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 19:44, 18 December 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).

Disney09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked because I want you to be aware that most of the edits I've made on Wikipedia aren't my edits. I recognize that the reasons for my blockage is for constantly editing professions and genres, which I don't actually do. I know it seems like an untruthful excuse, but I actually share an account with a friend of mine who doesn't quite "understand" the practicality and significance of Wikipedia. You might realize the truth if you compare my contributions in articles, such as Belle and Somewhere Out There, to those of my acquaintance who mostly edits info boxes. I was actually quite shocked when I returned from my vacation and found that I was blocked from editing Wikipedia. I assure you that I will talk to my friend about these issues, and if things don't improve in about two weeks, I will either delete this account, (if possible), change my password or create a completely different account. I hope you understand.Disney09 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Any given account should only be used by a single person. See WP:NOSHARE. Since editing is anonymous, we have no way of knowing who is behind the edits. Therefore we can only judge based on the edits made. Jujutacular ^talk 05:00, 22 December 2010 (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.

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).

Disney09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize. I was completely unaware that accounts weren't allowed to be shared. It was simply an effort to assist Wikipedia, and I was ignorant to the fact that it wasn't allowed. I have communicated with my friend, and he says he understands, and we won't be sharing this account anymore. I assure you, my performance will improve.Disney09 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I know I've made some very poor decisions lately, but I can assure you, Dave, I'm all right now". Uh, no. The socking/meating is just too obvious. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2010 (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.

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).

Disney09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To prove my allegiance, if you unblock me, I shall refrain myself from editing celebrity articles for at least one month. By celebrity pages, I mean singers, songwriters, producers, politicians, actors, actresses, dancers and so on, but I'll still edit articles that are not celebrity articles, such as movies, fictional characters, songs and so on. If I fail to do so, I will gladly accept being blocked again.Disney09 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Evading your block and making threats is not a good way to be unblocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 22 December 2010 (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.

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).

Disney09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't trying to evade or threaten anyone or anything, and I'm sorry if it sounded like a bribe. Look, I just don't want to be accused of something I didn't do because of something I wasn't aware of. I know you've probably hear pleads like this a million times, but I'm not just making a plead. I'm reasoning, and you've probably heard that before too. I know I should have read the instructions before editing an article, but I wasn't aware of anything this seriousDisney09 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you logged out to avoid your block after promising to follow the rules, it isn't possible for me to believe you- you have demonstrated that you do not keep your promises. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:47, 22 December 2010 (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.

Any admin contemplating this should review Special:Contributions/64.231.70.182.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, since you have admitted you share this account, it will not be unblocked. TN X Man 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|It wasn't me who logged out. It was the friend I was sharing the account with. Since I can't create a new account, change my password, or be unblocked, what do I do? Should I wait until my IP address is also unblocked and then create a new account?Disney09 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 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).

Disney09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, it wasn't an evasion. It was a question. Okay, I understand that maybe I'm not suited for Wikipedia. It's been a very mind enhancing experience none-the-less. Thanks for your consideration and patience, and I guess this is the last time you'll be hearing from me, or my friend. For the final time, I'm sorry for all the disturbances my account has caused, and my partner apologizes too.Disney09 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Apology accepted, unblock still not granted. Since you have indicated that this is a shared account and you are aware that we simply cannot unblock you, I am going to insure this is the last time we hear from you by revoking your access to this talk page. If you wish to appeal further in the future you will need to contact the Arbitration Committee as detailed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2010 (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.