User talk:Tdi7457

Comment

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Jennifer Garner. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or controversial information about living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Megan Fox. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Liv Tyler. 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. — ERcheck (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with the page Deaths in January 2007 on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. 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. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Star Trek (film), even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Deaths in January 2008, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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. Tan

October 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Peter Griffin. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, you will be blocked from editing. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to CSI:NY. Your edits deliberately contradicted a guide comment embedded in the section you were editing, and changed the text in a manner contrary to accepted conventions. This can be considered to be vandalism and has been reverted. Ckatz^chat _spy 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2011 season

A tag has been placed on List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2011 season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2011 season

I have nominated List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2011 season, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2011 season. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of United States television series ended after 2001 season

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of United States television series ended after 2001 season. 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/List of United States television series ended after 2001 season. 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, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2009 season

A tag has been placed on List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2009 season, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Schram Jessy74.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Schram Jessy74.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Your recent edit to the page Portal:Current events/Sidebar 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 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. Mushroom (Talk) 13:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Faggot (slang). If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ash (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Gingers Have SOULS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gingers Have SOULS.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ash (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Deaths in 2010. 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. ... discospinster _talk 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Scientologists, you will be blocked from editing. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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.

You've been amply warned. One week is less than you deserve.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

assume good faith, condition to unblock, see talk page

Request handled by: Wehwalt (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

This wasn't your fault?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My friend was dinking around on my account when i was out of the room

You've asked for a review by a second admin, and that admin need not post to my talk page, I've got this on watchlist.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

come on, i'm trying to make a new page, but i can't, all because of a simple case of my friend fooling around

You're unblocked. The unblock is conditional on making a significant contribution to a page, and if that does not happen by the end of the day (Wiki time), I may reblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2010 in film. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 23:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page 2010 in film has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 11:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page 2010 in film. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to 2010 in film. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. BOVINEBOY2008 12:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2010 in film, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BOVINEBOY2008 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Elżbieta Czyżewska

Hello Tdi7457. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elżbieta Czyżewska, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Elżbieta Czyżewska

Hello Tdi7457. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elżbieta Czyżewska, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Elżbieta Czyżewska, and other pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your recent edits, in which you persist in trying to delete articles based on totally inadmissible criteria, and to delete items from lists without consensus, have been unconstructive. In view of past problems, this would normally call for a block. But I tend to be very reluctant to do that, and I give you one more warning that any repetition will be met by a substantial block. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note there have been very similar edits from an anon user address, 99.192.69.190. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing, and obvious sockpuppetry from an IP address (99.192.69.190). 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. ~ mazca ^talk 16:41, 3 July 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).

Tdi7457 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What did i even do? I'm not a sock puppeter. I live with 5 other people. How dare you.

Decline reason:

Sorry, WP:GOTHACKED applies here; if your account has been compromised, we have no way to be assured that the legitimate owner of the account is still in control of the account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:00, 3 July 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.

As far as I'm concerned you have continued to pursue, without the support of anyone else, a disruptive campaign to delete mentions of Elżbieta Czyżewska. The behaviour of the above mentioned IP address was identical. I've fixed the formatting of your unblock request and left it open for another admin to review. ~ mazca ^talk 22:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I've been away for vacation since May. My roomates must be messing around. I don't even know what was going on, i come home to find my account is blocked.

I talked with my roomates. They admit to the editing. They have apologized and i'm going to change my password. I do encourage to elongate the block of the unregistered user though, for they might start again. I once again apologize for the troubles they caused.

Are you suggesting i am playing a practical joke? I'M NOT PLAYING JOKES.

Seriously, my fucking roomates are always hacking my fucking account and going on Wikipedia to spread bullshit lies and delete pages, so now i fucking have my fucking editing rights revoked? That is not fair and unjust.

Well, if you won't unblock me, at least give me a date when the block expires. In my view, a good 4 months should suffice. Please acknowledge this act of acceptance.

Sorry, we don't unblock compromised accounts, period. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't read, my account was compromised by someone i know, and i changed my password.

Please take a moment and calm down, then re-read the comments above. This account, having been compromised, will never be unblocked. Read WP:GOTHACKED to see how to proceed. If you continue to insult other editors, this Talk page will be locked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what?, im glad i'm blocked. Assholes like Lugnuts and jpgordon ruin Wikipedia for people anyway, so you can all fuck yourselfs.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdi7457 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdi7457 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. BOVINEBOY2008 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdi7457 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. BOVINEBOY2008 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdi7457 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. BOVINEBOY2008 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of United States television series canceled or ended after the 2004 season

The article List of United States television series canceled or ended after the 2004 season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, no other annual list for ending television shows exists

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Captain Compass

The article Captain Compass has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable fictional character

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Captain Compass for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Captain Compass 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/Captain Compass until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]