User talk:Garfieldpooky

"Character analysis" sections

Hi. I don't think that we need character analysis sections, especially if they are essentially copies of content from other websites. If that is the case, please let if off as it is a copyright violation. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you before not to include copyvio material. Please do not edit the site to include this material. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Claire Cooper, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. The video doesn't explicitly say they are in a relationship, and YouTube videos should not really be used for citations. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jake Dean, you will be blocked from editing. You have been asked before to stop adding text that is a direct copy from the another website. You will be blocked if you do this again. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Claire Cooper. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kieron Richardson. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Claire Cooper. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. tv.com user submissions are NOT valid sources for statements as they have probably not been verified by tv.com. Your edits have been reverted. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Claire Cooper. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not replace official Hollyoaks site links with YouTube videos - it is not necessary and YouTube is not an official source. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to James Sutton (actor), you will be blocked from editing. You have been warned before about placing YouTube video links on Wikipedia (especially in favour of official Channel 4 video clips). This is your last warning and you will be blocked if you continue to do it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008: Names

While I appreciate your interest and diligence in editing soap opera-related articles, I would ask that you take more care in considering common names and the names of the articles themselves. For example, you changed the first mention of the character Iva Snyder's name to merely "Iva Benedict" despite the name of the article itself, which one should presume is the character's common name. You seem overly fond of the term "née" for maiden names and insist on using it for every female character, despite the fact that their maiden name may be part of their common name, or that consensus has established a certain way of presenting the character's name. You have made dozens of these changes lately and no other edits. Further, the term itself is rather archaic, and in many cases is just cumbersome and unnecessary (it's not commonly used in biographical articles for real people). Also, "né" is rarely used for men simply because it's a bit flowery. Again, you won't really find it in articles about real people.

You also frequently change "formerly" to "previously" for married names; the common real-life term for names is "formerly." Any society column would refer to someone as "the former Mrs. Jones" and not "the previous Mrs. Jones," because "former" relates to the person in question's name, while "previous" relates to another person altogether.

I encourage you to expand and improve article content rather than tweak established format. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 05:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Days of Our Lives cast members

Please do not remove characters from the Days of Our Lives cast member page. A consesus was reached in late 2007 that current cast members playing multiple roles (even in the past) would have BOTH their character names listed. This is a CAST MEMBER page, not a character listing, and this is the format. Changing it is bordering on vandalism. Also, please do not change Lucas Roberts to Lucas Horton. Per WP:COMMONNAMES, he must be referred to be the most common name. If you need any help with the format for this page, please let me know, and I will be happy to help you. Rm994 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox detail

Please familiarize yourself with Template:Infobox soap character#Relationship parameters. Detail like "father" and "lovers" is redundant, obvious, and unnecessary in most cases due to the paremeter headers that appear in the infobox. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Christian Clarke, you will be blocked from editing. This is something like the 6th edit you've made today that appears to be a test edit, this is why you are on a final warning immediately. 5 albert square (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections?

May I ask why you keep adding sections like ==o== and ==k== when making changes, and then removing them afterwards? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Common name

I don't expect you to respond to this because you have never made a single edit to a talk page other than your ridiculous moves. Women on soap operas marry and divorce at an alarming rate. In the interest of stability, we don't move their pages every time they marry but instead keep them at the name they are most often referred to. Right now there is s character on One Lie to Live whose split personality has married two different men in the past month or so, but we're not going to move the page to keep up with that. Generally speaking female soap characters are most commonly associated with their female names. I don't have a ton of patience with Wikipedia these days so I'm going to be blunt. I see a ton of warnings on this page and I see an editor who doesn't seem to heed them or want to work with others. So, the next time I see you do so eying against policy and consensus or I see someone waning you for the actions repeatedly documented on this page, I'm going to block you... and probably for a while. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while we cannot force you to work with other people, we can stop you from working against them. AniMate 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jorge Luis Pila

The article Jorge Luis Pila has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aylín Mújica. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JohnHWiki talk - 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Salma Hayek, 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. Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB as a source

Please do not use IMDB as a source for personal information in biography articles, it does meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to biography articles your account will be blocked from editing in order to allow you time to review and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's polices regarding verifiability. Many editors have explained to you why your edits are incorrect and have pointed you to the relevant policies, however you continue editing in a disruptive manner without regard to their concerns. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Francisco San Martin

The article Francisco San Martin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable actor

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing and BLP violations despite a clear final warning. Should you review Wikipedia's policies with regard to biography articles, reliable sources, and verification and decide that you would like to contribute in a productive manner you can request an unblock. Note that if you are unblocked I strongly suggest you seek a mentor to assist you with your editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:10, 13 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry for any rules I have violated. I believe I have a lot to contribute to wikipedia and would like another chance. Please reconsider my blocking. Thank you.

Decline reason:

There's a lot of warnings in that page up there ^, and we'd need some explanation from you about what you were doing, why you were doing it, why it was a problem, and how you will approach things differently in the future - you lost the chance of just "Sorry, I won't do it again" when you ignored all of those warnings. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2011 (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.

Proposed deletion of Ezequiel Montalt

The article Ezequiel Montalt has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. C F A 💬 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]