User talk:CPAT

January 2016

Hello, I'm SideshowBob7. I noticed that you made a change to an article, All Nippon Airways, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SideshowBob7 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sudan Airways Flight 139, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to AirAsia Japan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Swiss Global Airlines, without any reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.--The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, 2016 Bandara Brussels Bom

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, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2016 Bandara Brussels Bom. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2016_Brussels_bombings. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2016_Brussels_bombings – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Faith (dog), appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 15:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Qatar Airways. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or add other non-existent materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Qantas, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ZJOEY (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at China Southern Airlines, you may be blocked from editing without any further warning. ZJOEY (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the nonsense that you left at Cathay Pacific fleet and you have make many unsourced material to Wikipedia a lot. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, I will honestly report this to an administrator. Take this as your very last warning. ZJOEY (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Emirates fleet. Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Turkish Airlines, you may be blocked from editing without any further warning. ZJOEY (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lufthansa. Take this as your very last warning. ArdajaniB (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you at WP:AIV following your unsourced changes [1] to Etihad Airways. ZJOEY (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nikolas.Sudarpo (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Sockpuppet

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here for my wrong being, I know that A create a writing style like Nikolas.Sudarpo but I am not a Sockpuppet and I use this far than this. Promise me I will do those thing again CPAT (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavioral evidence is compelling. And as you clearly don't speak English very well, I suggest you stick to the Wikipedia in your native language. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have a sure how to edit properly in my native languange, but I don't know about that Nikolas.Sudarpo and I never edit that account before. However I'm not sure who tried to blame me, but when can I be unblocked. CPAT (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request is basically incoherent. That is, I cannot understand what you are saying. You have previously stated you haven't used any other accounts here at Wikipedia, but that's all but impossible to accept given the extreme overlap. Combine this with your prior blocks for disruptive editing, and I'm sorry to say, I have to agree with the previous admin. I suggest you stick to the Wikipedia in your native language. Yamla (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello back there, I am so sorry for a long term abuse and I tried to make an unblock request at UTRS but never works, please just unblocked me and I will not vandalize wikipedia again. CPAT (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been editing disruptively for almost two years, and I see no reason whatever to think you are suddenly going to change now. Also, it is clear that your ability at English is not sufficient for you to be able to edit an English language encyclopaedia competently, even if you sincerely wish to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2016 (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.

To the reviewing admin, please note further attempts to be unblocked at socks User talk:GJZHA and User talk:CZXCA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest revoking talk page access, given the history here. The user is clearly just deliberately wasting our time. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16500 was submitted on Sep 11, 2016 15:49:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CPAT. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]