User talk:Station Agent 836

Notices

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Dark Shadows, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nicholasm79 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Lists of Soul Train episodes

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to List of Soul Train episodes (seasons 1-9), as "minor" if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The rule of thumb is that only vandalism/test reversions or edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modifying content should be flagged as "minor". Thank you. hulmem (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Phillies

Please do not change the broadcasting section with reference to "other articles" unless you are prepared to cite policy-based examples. Use the article's talk page for discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on WWOR-TV . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Edits and behaviors by you, User:Rollosmokes and User:Runteldat are too similar to conclude otherwise. –MuZemike 02:16, 20 January 2010 (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).

Station Agent 836 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that this block was unfairly enforced. A new user should not be labeled a sockpuppet just because of a minor disagreement with other users, or because of similarities with another editor. There are millions of registered and unregistered users here, and shared interests and editing similarites are bound to happen. There seems to be a few users who are fiercely overprotective of their areas of interest, and are willing to fight and persecute anyone who disrupts their territory. I was never really given a chance to say my piece, and I was not looking for any fights. My only objective here is to contribute to this place in a constructive and productive manner. Please lift the block and I will prove that.

Decline reason:

"There are millions of registered and unregistered users here, and shared interests and editing similarites are bound to happen." In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Didn't fool 'em at the SPI and it doesn't fool me. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (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.

Bah, bah, ha, ha. ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.36.25 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]