User talk:Pantsaklan

{{block|I humble ask to be unblocked because I haven't use my second account since my last block ! Also, an other guy had unblocked me for that, so I don't even know why I have been blocked.

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of Victorious episodes, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Don't use wikias as references, they are edited by anonymous people so info there is not reliable. See where they got their info and use that as a reference, not the wikia itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of iCarly episodes. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Ben 10: Omniverse

The article List of Ben 10: Omniverse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The pilot hasn't been produced yet. It's not clear there will be any episodes to list.

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. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Ben 10: Omniverse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Ben 10: Omniverse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ben 10: Omniverse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Ben 10 omniverse temp.png"

A page you created, Ben 10 omniverse temp.png, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iCarly (season 6)

Thank you for contributing to this article. Unfortunately, the plot summary you added has had to be removed, as it appears to have been copied from elsewhere on the internet. While you are welcome to describe television shows in your own words, are viewing them, you cannot copy descriptions from other sources, even official ones. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your addition to List of Victorious episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You were notified about this previously on another of your sock accounts - User talk:Ptsaklan#December_2011. As stated there: "Quotes are by default copyrighted. For fair use also need a valid reason to have them - there is none here." Nothing has changed since then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited ICarly (season 6), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Schneider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012 (2)

Your addition to iCarly (season 6) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Because I didn't realise it was so serious to write a plot about an episode and also I got new in information about Life with Boys episodes and someone renamed the first episode's title to a hideous one

Decline reason:

Several copyright warnings are still visible on this page, so you did know it was serious, and you chose to ignore the warnings. 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

because I realised that what I did was pretty wrong. I apologise for it and I say promise that from now, I will respect and follow the rules. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Like Beeblebrox, I'm going to decline your request as well. There are quite a few copyright warnings on this page, yet you appear to be oblivious to the main reason for your block. In your latest request to be unblock you cannot identify what you did wrong.
Copyright is very important to Wikipedia. It is in fact a core element of what Wikipedia is and anyone contributing to Wikipedia must understand what we do not simply copy things from other places on the internet.
Take a week off contributing and read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyright violations instead. For some background as to why copyright is so important to Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:About also.
I appreciate it may take some time to read all of these, but they are important. I trust that a week will be sufficient time for you to do so. --RA (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I ask to be unblocked because I have think about what I have done and decided not to do it ever again. I'm deeply sorry for the copyright violation I caused and I please ask to be unblocked. Also, I have other information to add which can be useful to our site.

Decline reason:

Did you read and understand the declining messages to your previous unblock requests? "In your latest request to be unblock you cannot identify what you did wrong" still applies: you say that you are sorry for what you did, but it is not at all clear whether you actually understand what it is that you did wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2012 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of multiple accounts, including using one account to evade a block on another account. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please, unblock me, I totally regreted what I did and I will not do any copyright violations again. And, for the third time, I tell you I didn't know it was that serious and I'm deeply sorry

Decline reason:

And for the third time, yes you did know it was serious, because you have a bunch of warnings about it on this very page - we will need to be convinced that in future you will take such warnings seriously and will not ignore them. In any case, you will need to also address your block evasion before you can be considered for unblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2012 (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.

You are now blocked indefinitely for attempting to dodge your original block - you need to address that if you'd like to be unblocked. →B music ian 12:01, 10 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello again, dear Wikipedia writers. In the last unblock request, I wrote you I didn't know it was so wrong and you responded that you send me a bunch of request. Well, they were sent to me, but I thought it wasn't so serious (but know I understand how serious it is). I tried to be careful and don't do any copyright violation again. Then, I found in TV Guide.com about iCarly's new episode "iPear Store", so I decided to inform the site about it. Also, I wrote the plot that was given there, don't thinking that this is copyright violation too. Then, you blocked me until May 4, 2012. In that morning, I remembered about a second account I had, so I decided to write about the episode of Life with Boys that haven't aired in Canada, but here in Greece they are (all 22 episodes). Then, you understood it and blocked me until May 18, 2012. Also, I went to the page "Victorious episodes" and there was a plot about the upcoming episode "Tori Goes Platinum". So with all the respect I ask you to answer me, if you can, why the writer of that plot wasn't blocked and his plot deleted ? . Also, when I tried to edit after May 18, the block request said "no expire set". Can you explain me why May 18 changed to no expire set ? With pleasure, Pantsaklan P.S. I'm greek, sorry if there are any grammar or ditcation mistakes.

Decline reason:

As noted above, you continue to create new accounts to edit despite being repeatedly informed that this is against policy. If you weren't such a nice and polite guy, I'd also cut off your talk page access in declining this as you are essentially wasting our time by repeatedly refusing to address this. You have one more chance to address this block evasion and socking before we cut your talk page access off. I would suggest you consider telling us that you are going to stick to one account, for starters. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2012 (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 answer a couple of questions...

Why wasn't that other person blocked? I don't know. They might have written the plot summary in their own words rather than by a straight copy. Or they might indeed have breached copyright by copying it and it wasn't noticed. In any case, people don't get blocked for a single copyright violation - they get blocked for doing it repeatedly after warnings. But this is all irrelevant - to get yourself unblocked you need to address your own behaviour, not that of other people.
Why was your block increased to indefinite? That has been explained to you in the above message that says "You are now blocked indefinitely for attempting to dodge your original block". Your block was escalated because you used an alternative account to carry on editing while you were blocked - it is you the person who is blocked, and you must not use other accounts to evade your block.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello dear wikipedia writers, I humble ask to be unblocked, because I have regreted all the things I do : first, I did a copyright violation (by mistake, but I did it). Then, I used a second account for write while I'm in block. I'm deeply sorry about that and I swear, I will not do it again. I admit I thought you couldn't find it, but you did. I try to be honest with you and I say again I'm really, really, really sorry. I hope you understand I have regreted all the bad things I did (copyright violatio for n, sock puppetry), thank you for saying I'm kind and polite, with estimate for your work, Pantsaklan P.S. If you don't think I should be unblocked and delete me talk page, it's OK, Ι won't be angry with you. I will just be a normal Wikipedia visitor and not writer, that's all. But I think you should thing again and unblock me. But, that's your choice, not mine.

Decline reason:

As per the message below, I'll technically decline this unblock request as your Pantsaklanos account is now unblocked - so if you just resume using that one, you won't need this one unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2012 (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.

Please stop posting these unblock requests at the top of the page - talk pages work with the newest posts at the bottom. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have an unblocked account

From your unblock requests I assume you didn't realise that your account Pantsaklanos was only temporarily blocked, and its block ran out over three weeks ago. You are perfectly free to edit with that account. If there is some reason why it would be better to use this account, please let us know, and we can consider whether to block that one and unblock this one, but if there is no special reason then I suggest you just go ahead with using the other account. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]