User talk:Dwdpuma

Truth Martini

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Truth Martini, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/t/truth-martini.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Truth Martini

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.

A tag has been placed on Truth Martini requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Keystoner idin (speak) 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Menkaure, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Alexa Bliss— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emma (wrestler). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Emma (wrestler) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Emma (wrestler). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Emma (wrestler) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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 ~~~~}}. Rami R 07:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwdpuma. Thank you. w^L^{<speak·check>} 11:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwdpuma. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, 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) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm Jamesmcmahon0. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Chris Renfrew— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Breezango. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JTP ^(talk) 02:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Bam Bam Bigelow. Jim1138 (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwdpuma. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #18473 was submitted on Jun 08, 2017 20:11:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia admins I know that I had a bad behavior because I disrespected the wikipedia policies in an edit war, disrupting editing and sockpuppetry, but my edits were in good faith, I just wanted to contribute and express my opinion, so that's why I think that this block is no longer necessary. Please give me one more chance and I promise to contribute, continue to assume my good faith, knowing more about the wikipedia policies and avoid my past behaviour. Thanks for your time Dwdpuma

Decline reason:

Your edits were not in good faith. You maliciously and deliberately engaged in block evasion and a significant amount of sockpuppetry over a period of an entire year, including as recently as last month (or possibly more recently than that). You repeatedly lied about this. You have no chance of being unblocked at the moment. Your best bet is to apply under WP:SO, which requires absolutely zero edits for at least six months. At that point, you'll need to be substantially more convincing than this. Claiming your edits were in good faith just won't fly, as they very, very clearly were not. Yamla (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2017 (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.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.126.237.217 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]