Jump to content

User talk:Bigshowandkane64

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bigshowandkane64 (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 6 December 2013 (→Apology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 2012

Hello! Bigshowandkane64, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Bigshowandkane64 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Note that, under Wikipedia policy, if any content is questioned or challenged, it may not be included unless reliable sources are provided to support it. The fact that the content has been there a long time is not a justification for keeping it, and the fact that it has been removed many times is an indication that it is highly controversial, which makes the need to justify it more important, not less. Also, even if there are reliable sources, there may be other reasons why the content may be considered unsuitable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Thomas and Friends

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Thomas and Friends, 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. Trivialist (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking users

Hi Bigshowandkane64, I'm sorry but I can't block users because I don't know how to either. But user Snowflake wasn't removing Voice artists he was improving it because the previous version was had so many errors e.g characters that haven't been in the CGI series and voice actors that hadn't been involved the CGI series. C.bonnick (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin

Regarding the George Carlin article: Obviously you're a big Thomas & Friends fan, but there doesn't need to be so much information about his work on one series, which was not a large part of his career. Trivialist (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Blue Mountain Mystery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hope (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) 10:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Glenn Wrage

The article Glenn Wrage has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have 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}} 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. Eeekster (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello, Bigshowandkane64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Shearonink (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove Biographies of Living Persons prods from articles without addressing the issue, as you did with Glenn Wrage. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the respective talk page instead. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bigshowandkane64. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower ChatAbsent 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you recently made your 1,000th edit to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and the UK Trip

Until we have a reliable source (not a wikia site, youtube or a blog), we cannot include this on the Thomas & Friends page. I've started a discussion at Talk:Thomas & Friends#Thomas and the UK Trip. Please contribute and see if we can find something before you add it again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Sorry, I can't block anyone -- I'm not an admin. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just started looking over Robsinden's comments, and I tend to agree with him -- wikis are not a reliable source. As you have probably seen here, anyone can edit an article to say anything. Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I won't ask you that again. But just to let you know I said sorry to him before and were fine now. But I'm not going to do it again. That was the last time I'm doing it, but now no more.

No problem. Trivialist (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I accept his edits now, and I agree with your message too. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources CourtneyBonnick (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My edits

I know you didn't add it back. An anon made the edits. Thanks for your message. Cresix (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! ;) Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend this message for me or 24.126.214.219? He is blocked by the way. Cresix (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at Disneyland Resort

Hey there. I've undone your recent change at Incidents at Disneyland Resort because no reliable source was provided to support the edit. You will need to provide either a direct link to the article that describes this incident, or you can use the {{cite web}} template that can be found here. If you need help completing this, please ask me and I'll assist you. --McDoobAU93 15:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit assistance

I got your message on my talk page. You did indeed add a legitimate source, but it looks like your formatting of that source could use a little help. Smartie2 should not have just reverted the edit; he should have seen that you had indeed posted something and then worked to format it, as I did when you provided the source at Incidents at Disneyland Resort. I knew you were trying to respond to my comment, so I checked what you provided and formatted it properly. Another editor has done that at Mickey Mouse, as well.

If you're not sure how to use the templates, you can simply enclose the website address with the <ref> tags. It would look something like this: <ref>http://www.news.com/news-story-that-backs-up-my-edit.html</ref>. If an editor sees that, they'll either leave it alone or add the appropriate template to add more information. They should not just delete it as Smartie did. Of course, a user may still delete the source if they believe it is not considered reliable. If that is the case, instead of adding it back and edit-warring, discuss it on the talk page. Other editors may agree with you, or they may say why the source is not acceptable. They're not doing it to be mean or as a personal attack against you.

And I do agree that Smartie is not being very civil towards you, which might have been what prompted this edit of yours, a sure sign that someone's frustrated or otherwise meeting resistance. I'll leave a message on Smartie's talk page to remind him that (1) he should assume good faith with regards to edits, (2) he should remember that editors may delete content from their user pages at will, with limited exceptions and (3) that he should be polite when reminding other users of Wikipedia policy. There's a right way and a wrong way to do that, and what he was doing was the wrong way, in my personal opinion.

--McDoobAU93 23:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice ... you might want to avoid Smartie for a bit. Work on articles that he doesn't normally frequent. If he were to follow you there, then there might be a case of wiki-hounding. Focus on providing reliable sources and including them when you make your edits. Leaving them in the edit summaries is not enough; they need to be part of the article's content. If a user has an issue with a source, they should at least tell you why the source is not acceptable. For what it's worth, IMDb is not really considered reliable for film articles; for information on that, look here. --McDoobAU93 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, IMDb is not a source. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read what I wrote in this edit. I thought very hard about whether I should block you. I decided not to, because you were provoked, and you are clearly trying to do better. However, you really must remember "do not edit war even if you think you are right, and the other person is wrong". During the block there will be one less pressure on you, which I hope will help. However, when other editors try to provoke you, try not to take the bait: it really isn't worth it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing I would add ... I would advise against antagonizing Smartie with posts on his talk page. Let his block play out while you focus on editing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. --McDoobAU93 03:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block for continuing edit warring

I have really tried hard to give you as much of a chance as possible to learn how to overcome the problems that led to your being blocked. I made an offer to unblock you on certain conditions, one of which was that you "indicate that you know what 'edit warring' means, and make it clear that you will avoid doing it again". You didn't really do that, but I stretched a point, and accepted your statement that you would "make bold edits, and if they get reverted, discuss them on the talk page. If the discussion isn't going amywhere, seek WP:3O. If that doesn't work, WP:RfCs can really resolve disputes". I unblocked you. You continued to edit war, but I decided not to immediately re-block you, but instead gave you what was intended to be friendly advice about avoiding edit warring. Unfortunately, though, you still continue to edit war. See, for example, [1], [2], [3], [4], the last two of those edits being after the message I gave you at 20:48, 3 March 2013, where I told you that I had already seriously considered blocking you for edit warring. I get the impression that you continue to edit war because you have difficulty understanding, rather than because you intend to be uncooperative. However, that makes no difference: anyone who can't follow Wikipedia's guidelines because they can't understand them is not going to be able to edit properly. Blocks are intended to prevent problems, not to punish editors. With great reluctance, because I really did hope this time you would do better, I have restored your indefinite block. You can, of course, request an unblock, as you did before, but I do not think that you should be unblocked unless you can make it really clear that you do understand what edit warring is, and convince an administrator that you are not likely to do so again. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. James, that second quoted statement was from me, not from him.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Bigshowandkane64 responded "Right, Thanks cyberpower I can't forget about that too", which I (perhaps rather generously" took as accepting your wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2013 (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).

Bigshowandkane64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, I think JamesBWatson made a mistake of blocking me. When I looked back at my edits, I don't remember editing those articles I was at at all because I think my account was hacked. I don't remember going to that article at all. This a misunderstanding I didn't even edit those pages at all, because my account was hacked. But I don't think no one won't believe me after this but I'm telling you, But I am telling the truth, my account was hack! I hope no one declines my block again....

Decline reason:

Childish justifications won't get you anywhere. As the matter of fact, users claiming they were hacked are never unblocked because we don't know who's in control of their accounts now. Max Semenik (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2013 (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 said "I wasn't edit warring on purpose I just wanted to keep the articles the way they were." Although you have removed that comment, I thought it might help you to understand what was going on if I answered it anyway. Repeatedly trying to "keep the articles the way they were" when other people change them is exactly what "edit warring" means. As has been said several times, you don't seem to understand what we mean by "edit warring".
  • As you know, your last block was extended from one week to indefinite because of persistent evasion of the block, both by using sockpuppet accounts and by editing without logging in. One of the conditions that I set for unblocking you was that you would do no more of that. You have now evaded this block by editing without logging in, which adds yet another reason for keeping you blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am restoring the declined unblock request and comments relating to the block, which should remain as long as the block is in force. Please don't remove them again, or your talk page access will be removed. I also note that, in an edit summary, you threatened to evade the block again. I strongly suggest that, instead, you have a break from Wikipedia for at least six months, and then consider making another unblock request if you are still interested in contributing. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about me

I'm sorry, I won't say anymore treats. I just want the users to stop being so mean to me. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is being "mean" to you, except for one person who is now blocked. Several editors, far from being mean to you, have bent over backwards to try to help you, but you really just don't seem to grasp what we have been trying to say to you.
The time before last that you removed the declined unblock request and comments relating to the block, you were told that if you did so again, then your talk page access would be removed. You will therefore not be surprised to learn that that has now happened. I will make a note to remind myself to restore talk page access in six months, in case you want to request an unblock then. However, I will delete that note if I find that you have been evading the block again, either by using other accounts or by editing without logging in. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have pretended to be me, and tried to obtain my password. If you do choose, after six months, to make another unblock request, you had better explain that, as well as dealing with all the other issues with your editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'm really sorry JamesBWatson. I was in a bad mood that day. I don't mean any harm anymore, I just want to fix some mistakes I found on my favorite articles. I promise I will follow the rules this time and I will not edit war against another user again. I will discuss it on the talk pages for now on this time, I still think you won't believe me but I am telling the truth, I mean it. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Bigshowandkane64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I please have one last chance Wikipedia. If you saw my message above to JamesBWatson, I said I was sorry and I don't mean any harm at all. I was just in a bad mood last time. This time I will follow the rules and I will not edit war against anyone anymore. I will discuss them on the articles' talk pages for now on, I'm telling the truth. I'm not laying at all, I mean it. So can I please have one more chance.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Can I please have one last chance Wikipedia. If you saw my message above to JamesBWatson, I said I was sorry and I don't mean any harm at all. I was just in a bad mood last time. This time I will follow the rules and I will not edit war against anyone anymore. I will discuss them on the articles' talk pages for now on, I'm telling the truth. I'm not laying at all, I mean it. So can I please have one more chance. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Can I please have one last chance Wikipedia. If you saw my message above to JamesBWatson, I said I was sorry and I don't mean any harm at all. I was just in a bad mood last time. This time I will follow the rules and I will not edit war against anyone anymore. I will discuss them on the articles' talk pages for now on, I'm telling the truth. I'm not laying at all, I mean it. So can I please have one more chance. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Can I please have one last chance Wikipedia. If you saw my message above to JamesBWatson, I said I was sorry and I don't mean any harm at all. I was just in a bad mood last time. This time I will follow the rules and I will not edit war against anyone anymore. I will discuss them on the articles' talk pages for now on, I'm telling the truth. I'm not laying at all, I mean it. So can I please have one more chance. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Also, I promise I won't remove all this stuff off my talk page. Because, I don't want my talk page access to be removed again Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you allowed to revert another editor? Toddst1 (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert? Can you please tell what that means so I can answer it correctly. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bigshowandkane64&oldid=584777227"