User talk:Chrome 313

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Tazlinc1 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

January 2018

Hello, I'm Geraldo Perez. An edit that you recently made to Template:Cartoon Network seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to FX (TV channel), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from TNT HD into TNT (U.S. TV network). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. This requirement also applies to material you copy into sandboxes and drafts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

I have reverted all of your edits. I don't know if this is some odd attempt in order to get auto-confirmation on your edits, but they aren't helpful and don't add anything of value to articles since they merely reverse the SD and HD designations. Don't game our site, please. Nate • (chatter) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting of the above comment and return of your odd edit to Adult Swim makes clear who this is. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FX

I'm asking for speedy deletion of this page. Changes you want to the FX article can be stated on the Talk:FX (TV channel), but outright pasting your preferred version of this page under the cover of a 'draft' without discussion over it is not allowed. Nate • (chatter) 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And finally I cannot do anything about this page since its in your own personal userspace, but know that this should never appear in article space as it contains multiple falsehoods. Nate • (chatter) 04:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the series of edits you just made (including this one), consider this your last warning. I have a feeling that you've been here under another account, and sockpuppetry is unacceptable here. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. —DoRD (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2018 (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).

Chrome 313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

sock block

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:03, 13 January 2018 (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.