User talk:DanVsFan181

Welcome!

Hello, DanVsFan181, 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, such as Dan Vs. (season 4), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mr. Guye (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dan Vs. (season 4)

A tag has been placed on Dan Vs. (season 4), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G11: WP:SOAPBOX; Promoting the cause of not spreading rumors

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, such as you did with the article Dan Vs. (season 4). Usually, hoaxes will be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dan Vs. (season 4). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Dan Vs. (season 4). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Warner Bros., you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2015 (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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (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).

DanVsFan181 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i love Dan Vs., but i have two revelations, i am sockpuppet of Gabucho181, and also, Geraldo Perez, EvergreenFir, Ponyo, AdamDeanHall, Dcbanners and other admins s*cks. DanVsFan181 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:52, 14 January 2015 (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 is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Film Roman, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Perpetuating hoaxes, deliberate insertion of fake info Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (with bad words)

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).

DanVsFan181 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

you can unblock me, because i am f*cking blocked sockpuppet, JpGordon hates me, please, not remove talk page access. DanVsFan181 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reasons for your block, which were that you are a sock created to evade a block on your account, and your only edits were vandalism. Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2015 (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.