User talk:Chevroletfan123

December 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm GSK. Your recent edit to the page The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chevroletfan123, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Chevroletfan123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:LittleBusters. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chevroletfan123[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Card Sharks, you may be blocked from editing. It's not appropriate to add the hoax template to almost every article you come across. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing[edit]

I've been reviewing your edits, and I'm worried that an unreasonable number of them are either wrong as a matter of policy, or have some other problem with them. To provide some examples, you tagged this article as a hoax, despite the article being about a tourist attraction that clearly exists; you requested deletion of Template:SockmasterProven on the grounds that it was contrary to policy, despite the fact that it correct as to policy, and you have been adding questionable hatnotes to articles. In light of how few good edits you have made, such a pattern of editing is disruptive, and it needs to stop. There are also indicia that this may not be your first account. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Competence is required, and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry before continuing, lest you continue on the path to a probable block. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Socksuspectnotice, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Ben Mac Dui 11:55, 30 December 2012 (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).

Chevroletfan123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Some think your blocking could be a trap. So unblock me and let me edit!

Decline reason:

This request makes no sense, and certainly does not address the reason for your block, which is disruptive editing. During your time out please learn how wikipedia works; right now you clearly do not know.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:22, 30 December 2012 (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 you have been making frivolous and time-wasting edits, I have disabled your talk page access for the remainder of your block. Any unblock request should be made via the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, but you would do better to spend your time learning something about Wikipedia from the WP:Five pillars, the WP:Welcome page and the WP:Introduction. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chevroletfan123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Chevroletfan1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Nonsensical unblock request - you are not blocked for username violations, and your unblock request does not address the reason for your block. Further inappropriate unblock requests will result in your ability to edit this talkpage being revoked. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be wondering why your block is limited to just one week. If so, you have a good point. If you wish to edit Wikipedia constructively when the block expires, then that will be great. However, more of the same will be likely to lead to a much longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2013 (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).

Chevroletfan123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So I do not want indefinite blocks! Now let me edit. NOW!!!

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: account is a sockpuppet. Talkpage access revoked. Please make any further unblock requests via the master account. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:10, 2 January 2013 (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.