Jump to content

User talk:Sponge58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

[edit]

Cast section on Dani's Castle should not have all those separate tables for each season. That level of detail can go in the episode list for the particular season not the main article. Also it should focus on just the main characters. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge58 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)== April 2015 ==[reply]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to List of Dani's Castle episodes has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Alicia Florrick (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to The Dumping Ground (series 3) has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Alicia Florrick (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Dani's Castle episodes. 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 loss of editing privileges. Please read edit summaries when your edits are reverted so you don't make the same mistakes over and over. You could be blocked if you continue to disregard warnings. As I have said before, we can't use IMDb as a source. The only things IMDb can be considered truly reliable for are American writing credits and age ratings. (see WP:CITEIMDB) It *can* be used for released films and episodes but not for upcoming things. Also, I have said before that you can't just count forward 13 weeks to find the end date because it doesn't take into account the fact that they might do a two episodes the first or last week. Or, they might put on an episode every weekday as they have done with other summer shows in the past. (see WP:CRYSTAL) Continued disregard for these warnings will constitute vandalism, and could lead to loss of editing privileges.Alicia Florrick (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really say this though considering I have used IMDb as a source before and it was never deleted for at least a month, so this just proves how reliable IMDb is and you can't stop me from adding reliable sources. Sponge58 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes no sense. The fact that someone did not revert a problematic edit, doesn't mean that the edit wasn't problematic. See WP:RS/IMDB Also, nobody is trying to stop you from adding reliable sources. That's exactly what we want. We are trying to get you to stop adding unreliable sources. See WP:RS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at All at Sea (TV series). Diffs: 14 edits Source provided says nothing about a new season, thus is WP:OR. Future episode date and synopsis is unsourced and dubious. Contravenes WP:CRYSTAL Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided on All At Sea (TV Series) is reliable as it does say something about a series 3. If you look further down, it'll say an actor name, their role and the series they star in. In this case, it says 'season 3'.(talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In the article you made the statement that season 3 was announced, but you did not provide a sufficient source that "announces" season 3. Finding one document that alludes to season 3 is not the same thing as an announcement. Your claim constitutes original research. Further, you have submitted information about a S3 episode, "Sandcastle", slated to air five months from now, but you have not provided a reliable source. That is not acceptable, especially considering your history of submitting improperly sourced content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Alicia Florrick (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Diary of a wimpy kid old school.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Diary of a wimpy kid old school.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More problems with unsourced edits

[edit]

I came here to explain to you that you need to include reliable sources when adding information to articles as your addition to Richard Wisker added an unsourced date of birth, however I see that this requirement has been explained to you before. Being aware of a policy and ignoring it is a problem. Please ensure you include your sources moving forward.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ralph's House

[edit]

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 Ralph's House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. reddogsix (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Ralph's House. 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. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Ralph's House, you may be blocked from editing. reddogsix (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dani's Castle

[edit]

A reason for your reverts of my edits at the episodes concerning Dani's Castle, if you please? Alex|The|Whovian 18:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dani's Castle (series 3). 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. You've been warned. Do not add summaries for episodes that have not yet aired. You cannot summarize something that you have not yet seen. Alex|The|Whovian 17:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Dani's Castle. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. The infobox cast order should be for the entire series. Per template:infobox television: "Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Billionaire Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Thompson. 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) 11:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 November

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 November

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumping Ground

[edit]

Hey,

All edits are appreciated, but there is a certain style that needs go be stuck with. Thinking about it, your cast list might be a good idea, so that can stay. However, with the episodes and episode guide. Double episodes are just 2 episodes and when there are repeats, they are split as the original 2 episodes, so that is how it's always been, so please don't change that. Also, do not add arrivals or departures without a reliable source or until it has happened. I hope you understand and comply with this.

Thanks, Grangehilllover (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

It doesn't matter if that is how it has always been. Nothing has been confirmed as to whether episodes 1 and 2 follow the same story and will be merged. Things do change, for example the episode count. It has always been 13 episodes from TBR series 1 to TDG series 2. So it is like me saying oh yeah series 3,4,and 5 don't have 20 episodes because 13 is how it's always been. Don't make assumptions until it has been announced.

Thanks, Sponge58 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You're right about the number of episodes, but if you look at all 3 series of TBR and TDG, they have all had double episodes. So, one of us is wrong and the other is right, but isn't it best to follow the layout how it's always been until there is confirmation either way? I can't make assumptions any more than you can, but if we look at how it has been for 6 years?

Thanks Grangehilllover (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sponge58 reported by User:Grangehilllover (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

[edit]

Information icon Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to The Detective (Online Drama Series), contributed colours that were not WCAG AAA Compliant, causing problems for users that have accessibility issues, which must be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about this at WP:COLOR and Template talk:Infobox television season#Colour, which provide further information about contributing compliant colours to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Hi,

Please can you not remove references, even though the episode has aired. The references help verify things when and where possible.

Thanks, Grangehilllover (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, References are not necessary once the episode has aired. This is because references are only needed to support the episode when it is first added to the list. Once the episode is aired, references are no longer needed because the episode confirms the information given to the article and references are no longer needed to show this.

Thanks, Sponge58 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

But it's s basic rule of Wikipedia. If references are removed, more than likely one of them notices asking for references for verification will be asked for (you know, those orange and white boxes).

Here's an article explaining why references are used and that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Grangehilllover (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if references are so important, why don't you add them to other episodes of past series? If an episode has already aired, no reference is needed since all information has been proved in the episode!!

Hi,

There is no need to sound rude. Actually, I've done Tracy Beaker Returns episodes quite recently and I am getting round to the other The Dumping Ground series. But I do have a life outside Wikipedia too and I am working on other Wikipedia articles too. It would help if I didn't have to go back and put them in.

Thanks,

Grangehilllover (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to sound rude but if I did, I apologise.

List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes

[edit]

This post is regarding your edits at List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes.

Firstly, you added <!--Do not add a row for Series 6 until a proper table can be created for it. Do not remove Series 5 as it will be airing soon! You may be banned from editing if you keep making disruptive edits.-->. Per WP:TVOVERVIEW: A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season.

Next, you added <!--DO NOT REMOVE "2016". YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT "2016" WHEN THE EPISODES AIR BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THEY'LL AIR IN 2016!!!!--> and <!--DO NOT REMOVE 2017. EACH SERIES HAS AIRED ONE YEAR AFTER THE PREVIOUS. THEREFORE, 2017 WILL NEED TO STAY UNLESS IT IS STATED OTHERWISE. LETS JUST KEEP IT AS THE USUAL LAYOUT FOR NOW!-->. Per WP:TVUPCOMING: However, years should not be added to said section heading until an episode actually airs in that calendar year. For example, for the eleventh season of NCIS, the heading on its list of episodes page would have been "Season 11" until September 23, 2013. After episode 1 aired on September 24, 2013, it would be changed to "Season 11: 2013". And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11: 2013–14"..

Please keep these in mind - further disruptive editing, infringing the above, may be reported. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently blocked from editing because I have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry. So I can't edit an article which has false information. Yet again, some one keeps putting 'Joel Chigwende' as the writer of 'Leaving' and 'Ferret' on List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes. I previously added a source to show that 'Paul Rose' wrote the episode. I also googled 'Joel Chigwende' and found there is no such person. These edits need to removed and restored back to the correct ones. I would do it myself but I am currently unable to. I was wondering if you could do it. Sponge58 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. I don't watch the show. Enjoy your enforced vacation! Alex|The|Whovian? 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dani's Castle. 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. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must back up your points with a reliable source. If anyone is making disruptive editing, it's you. If you cannot prove that series 3 was the final series of Dani's Castle then I will be removing your points until reliable sources are added.
When I first made the edits, I provided a reliable source[1]. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dani's Castle, you may be blocked from editing. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just make sure that you put this source into the article. When I first noticed your edits, there was no source.
I didn't put it in the article and I will not be putting it in because it is a past event. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On any article, sources are needed. You must put the source in otherwise your point may be deleted and you could be banned from editing.
That is not how it works, references are needed for future events, but not past events. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at The Dumping Ground (series 4). Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to List of Mrs. Brown's Boys episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Diffs: [2] Content found in these additions can be found verbatim here. You have already been warned not to submit copyrighted content. I don't know what's confusing about this, but if you submit copyrighted content again, be it prose or images or whatever, I'll interrupt your editing privileges. Plot summaries must be written from scratch in your own words, not copied or even closely paraphrased from other sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Detective (TV series) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Detective (TV series) 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/The Detective (TV series) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Our House (Online series)

[edit]

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 Our House (Online series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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. Everymorning (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Hi there. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a vanity site, nor is it a place to advertise fan projects or any other sort of thing. The recent articles you created, The Detective (TV series), and Our House (Online series) are problematic because they do not meet our various WP:NOTABILITY criteria. At the very least, per our general notability guideline an article should only be created when there is significant coverage from reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. That means they must have received attention from mainstream publications with established reputations for fact-checking, and a clear editorial policy. There are more specific criteria for companies, musical groups, films, etc. You should familiarize yourself with these criteria if you intend to create articles and edit here, as repeated creation of problematic articles is almost always considered disruptive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes. Diff: [3] The community is not interested in what has traditionally been done in the past. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not attempt to predict the future. There is also WP:NODEADLINE for the addition of content. If we have to wait until the episode airs to confirm this information, then we will wait. If you submit this content again without a source, I will interrupt your editing privileges. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TDG Series 4 Episodes

[edit]

Hi,

Read this article, released on 11th February.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/cbbc-productions

8th paragraph down..."Other returning in-house commissions include another ambitious season for hit drama brand The Dumping Ground commissioned for 24x30 and a new game, with Jonathan Phillips joining as the new executive producer."

Thanks, Grangehilllover (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sponge58. You have new messages at AlexTheWhovian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shouty edit summaries

[edit]

Hi there, regarding this recent edit summary at List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes where you sort of wonder aloud "Whoever keeps putting other writers is actually pathetic (sorry but its true)." You do realize that there's an edit history for the article, right? It only takes a half-minute of looking to discover that IP 79.66.80.198 is responsible for these two edits: [4][5]. Once you identify who's submitting unsourced content, you can open a discussion on their talk page, or you can warn them using an appropriate template. I have already warned them, so there's no need for you to do it. Please remember that personal attacks are not acceptable at Wikipedia. You shouldn't be calling anybody pathetic, because it contravenes our policy on civility. The other shouty edit summaries you've added are not helpful and are only likely to make trolls want to mess with you. If you keep a cool head, you may find that things go easier around here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sorry for what I said but I get annoyed when people keep removing the correct information and putting in other information that is wrong. Sorry :)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brothers (Series)

[edit]

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 Brothers (Series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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.  GILO   A&E⇑ 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

[edit]
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).

Sponge58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

how dare you accuse me of this! I only created an article thinking it was an official way of raising publicity. I am sorry for doing this. I am not intending to violate Wikipedia. I contribute reliable information and can help make Wikipedia a better place for the wider community. I am disgusted at how you can accuse me of such an act! Sponge58 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the behavioral and technical evidence at the SPI report. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2016 (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.

Raising publicity for what? Is Brothers your personal project? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Brothers is my own personal project. Sponge58 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (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).

Sponge58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Sponge58 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been socking since 2014. You also continue to submit the same type of problematic content, like copyright violations, that resulted in your first account being blocked. You have also denied socking, which is clearly a lie. You have added promotional articles with no regard for notability criteria. There's no indication you comprehend why any of your disruptive behavior is disruptive, which raises questions about your competence. Also, we won't unblock any sock accounts. You'd have to file an unblock request from your earliest account, whatever that is. If you choose to go that route, be sure to format your unblock request properly, because you've failed to do that twice. You can consider the standard offer, but I think waiting a few years before requesting an unblock might be a better idea, and I think that disclosing every account you've had at Wikipedia would be a nice touch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2016 (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 repeatedly creating articles about your own non-notable productions since at least July 2015, and have kept on doing so despite repeated deletions of them. Why should we believe you have suddenly changed now that you have been blocked? Also, this is a sock account, and it is usual for you to request unblock on your original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Since the user admitted that the Brothers project is his, that directly links him to Jake Uniacke/Cartman810, so I have declined the request on the basis that we would never unblock a sock account no matter how much he protests. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

Sponge58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. I understand that I have created articles about personal projects in the past but that is because I thought it was okay. I now understand it isn't. You can't go round throwing accusations about saying I'm a so called 'sock puppet'. My contributions to the Wikipedia articles such as List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes are important as there is always a troll adding false information, which I always end up correcting because no one else does it. Please unblock me. I will only edit articles with correct and reliable information with the reliable sources needed. I am NOT a sock puppet. I am a normal Wikipedia user who edits articles for the greater good of the community. My behavior was unacceptable, I know. I have learnt from that and will not do it again. I am sorry. Sponge58 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For reasons already mentioned. We will not unblock any account made in violation of a previous block or ban. You would need to submit a request from the first account that was blocked indefinitely. Your failure to read things clearly is becoming irritating, and if you file an unblock request here again, I will revoke your talk page access. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2016 (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.

Boing! said Zebedee I remember being young and believing that if you denied something strongly enough then it never happened. We had a strawberry patch in the back yard and I used to sneak into it periodically to steal the ripest berries. I would always deny it and could never understand why my mother didn't believe me. Now that I'm older and wiser it's clear to me that you cannot plausibly deny being in the strawberry patch when you have strawberries smeared up the side of your cheek.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, that's very true. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can tell you for a fact that I am not a sock puppet. Just because I've had previous accounts, it doesn't prove what your accusing me of. I despise people who accuse me of things that I am not. I created an article about my own personal project? So what? How does THAT prove I'm a sock puppet? It doesn't. I'm simply creating a page. Its like saying I create a new article about a new series of The Dumping Ground. "Oh you created an article so you're a sock puppet". That's not how it works. A sock puppet is a constant disrupter and a troll. I am neither of those. Sponge58 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet is an editor who abuses multiple accounts contrary to WP:SOCK, including creating new accounts to evade a block as you have done here. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't create an account because I'm a 'sock puppet' if that's what you want to call me. I created it because I enjoy editing Wikipedia with content to help others. You can't block me for doing that! Stop accusing me of things I'm not doing. Sponge58 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Cyphoidbomb, Sorry for not reading it clearly. I'm not a strong reader. Why don't you think before you start insulting people saying them 'not reading something clearly is irritating'. Sponge58 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is your persistent disruption, copyright violations, self-promotion, and sockpuppetry. These all involve choices that you've actively made. Focus on that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one last chance to come clean before you lose the ability to edit this talk page: Are you honestly claiming that the account User:Cartman810, which was called User:Jake Uniacke before it was changed by request and which is now blocked, was not your account? Before you answer, remember that Brothers, which you admit is your production, was "created & produced by Uniacke Animations". And also try to recall that User:Cartman810, User:Cartman443, User:Cartman567 and this User:Sponge58 account all edited the same articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay! I never said that the accounts didn't belong to me did I? But yes, I did previously own them accounts. At the time, I was younger so I didn't understand WHY I was being blocked so created a new account because I couldn't understand why and could not accept the consequences of my actions. I now understand why. Also, I am Uniacke Animations but I'm obviously not going to put that as a Wikipedia account am I? Uniacke Animations is a Youtube Channel. But I will deny sock puppetry as I did not perform sock puppet acts. Sponge58 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and at WP:Sock puppetry it says "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to ... evade blocks...". As your original account, and all your others, are blocked, creating this one falls under evading blocks, and so by definition this account is a sock puppet account as the very act of creating it is a sock puppet act - and your continuing denial is blatantly false. Now, as I said I would do if you continued to deny the obvious, I have now removed your ability to edit this talk page. If you want make another unblock request, do it on your original account or via WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Sponge58. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sponge58&oldid=1142022147"