User talk:TVFAN24/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chappell's Status

Crystal Chappell is not going to be recurring on the series. She's contracted on the show. SOD confirmed such in their latest issue. There's been so interview/news posting saying she was recurring anyway. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't remove sources for no reason. That source for Christian Monzon is there for a specific reason. Thank you. Also, please do not violate WP:YEAR as you did. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Good Morning America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William F. Baker (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) 15:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Afternoon America

While I concede that The Chew is talk show, GAA isn't. It's a news show just like GMA, but with some lifestyle components. Farine (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

After going through some several websites, it appears that GAA is a talk show after all (but without a studio audience).

So, I'll let you make the decision about how you want to classify The Chew and GAA. You can put them all under "Talk Shows", or you can classify them as "Lifestyle show", "News show", "Talk Show". Both ways are acceptable and you decide which one you prefer. Have a nice weekend. Farine (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I have put the shows under "Talk Shows" for the ABC Daytime article, but left them in their respective sections for the List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company article. If you prefer it to be done in another way, feel free do it as long as it remains reasonnable. Take care. Farine (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NBC Daytime

This edit has been reverted.

Unlike ABC Daytime and CBS Daytime, NBC Daytime no longer exists. Thus, the way the article was before your change was fine.

Also, when you are making a major edit on any article such as the one you made, you should always provide an edit summary. Thank you. Farine (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:YEAR

Per this policy, things are listed 2004-06, not 2004-2006. I could issue you a warning for violating Wikipolicy but I will not. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Days cast

You have been asked repeatedly not to remove cast members until AFTER their final air date from List of Days of our Lives cast members as well as not to remove references. You will be reported if this occurs again. Rm994 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

stop

Stop removing sources next to the names of people. They're there for a reason. So stop or I'll report you for going against the talk page. They're there for a reason, stop trying to make it your own. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm Musicfreak7676. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 01:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

Do not post another abuse message like that at someone again. Consider this a final warning. NTox · talk 02:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited America's Next Top Model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigel Barker (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) 11:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. It is fairly clear that you haven't learnt from or conformed with your previous restrictions and this is simply unacceptable under any circumstances. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I said was wrong and inexcuseable and I truly am sorry but this editor has hounded my every move and edits and I don't think that is fair. This person has just tried to push my buttons in order to get me blocked. This person thinks they are always right and I have been a loyal contributor to editing Wikipedia. I think an indefinite block is a little harsh of a punishment. The reason I lashed out in such a way is I was in a bad mood at that particular moment of weakness and had no right to take it out on that editor. All I am asking is that my case be looked at and reevaluated so that maybe a different decision can be made regarding an indefinite block. If I am ever allowed back I will personally apologize to the editor I deeply regret offending. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In looking at your block history, you've been sanctioned on several occasions for edit warring, sockpuppetry (multiple times), and now disgusting NPA violations. You've been here a while and, quite frankly, you knew better than to do that. It appears you have been given multiple chances, but somehow things always end up here. Is your apology sincere? It probably is, and I have no reason to doubt you. However, blocks are designed to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, and given the history of disruption from your account from multiple angles, I see no justifiable reason to "let this one slide" yet again... after all, how long until something like this happens again? Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, something like that would not happen again. Before this editor came along, I had been editing without any problems and then this particular editor started looking at every move I made and I didn't think that was right. If I am given one last chance to redeem myself I will prove to Wikipedia that I am not only sincere but I will try to bring new ideas to talk pages. Its just that I love to edit here on Wikipedia and this person just tries to start trouble for me. Yesterday, I admit I had a moment of weakness but if you look at the past eight months, I have obeying all rules applying to Wikipedia. Please don't say the final decision is that I am banned indefinetley. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Further unblock requests will not be considered until you stop blaming other people - see WP:NOTTHEM -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Addendum: Note that if the apology in any way continues the behavior that led to this block (and whether or not it does is solely at my discretion), I reserve the right to not copy it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Musicfreak7676,

I just wanted to offer my sincere apologizes for my very rude and disrepectful comments I made on your talk page yesterday. I thought about it all night and realized that it must of hurt you deeply. I do not consider myself to be homophobic and I was just in a very mad mood at that particular time. I have many friends of all different races, sexual orientations and etc and it never should have been said. You have been a nice mentor to me and I know you are just trying to follow rules and guidelines. Some of the rules I disobeyed was not right and I should have brought my opinions on the matter to the talk pages and not continue to have edit wars with other editors. I realize its not healthy on either side and in the end accomplishes nothing. I know you know that I loved being an editor on Wikipedia and hope that one day I can be allowed back to the community. Again, I hope you can accept my apology. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The apology has been copied to Musicfreak7676's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your ban

Hey man. I know exactly how you feel about Musicfreak, he does the EXACT same thing to me, and it's a giant piss off. It's unfortunate that you were handed out an indefinite ban, but hopefully with the apology you wrote up the Administrators will review your case and rule in your favour. Colton hockey11 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (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 the actions that took place a few days ago. I made a major mistake that I regret. If you look this is the first time I made a personal attack to another editor and if you see I have since apologized for my actions. I will never engage in that type of behavior again. It is not only hurtful but accomplishes nothing and only makes the situation worse. In the past 2 days I have been blocked, I took the time to read all of Wikipedia's policies and rules. It made me well aware of how I am supposed to conduct myself. In previous blocks I have had, I never took the time to go back and read the literature to become accustomed with the rules. If I am lucky enough to be invited back to the Wikipedia community. I give you my word that I will obey all rules and make helpful contributions. I know with my history you may find it hard to believe but I am not perfect and made a major mistake. I am actually grateful that I was blocked because it made me realize to never take editing on Wikipedia for granted ever again if I am given the chance. I would appreciate being allowed back to the community. You can even set restrictions in place for me to follow. I don't know what more I can say. If you look at my past edits, I tried to add relevant information as it became available in order to keep Wikipedia always up to date. I'm not putting the blame on anyone else for my actions than myself. I'm hoping an administrator who reads this will put their faith in my oath. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've been looking in your talk archives, and I came across this posting from the last time you were blocked: "All I am asking for is ONE LAST CHANCE. I have admitted that i was COMPLETELY WRONG in reverting an article that already reached consensus. From now on I will no longer engage in an edit war and if you look at my edit history I have made many edits along the way. Please consider inviting me back to Wikipedia. I miss you guys. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)" So, you asked for a last chance. Last. You know what that word means, I am sure. Now you are asking for it again. Since we all know what last means how can we possibly do that? You admitted you were wrong then too, but here we are again. So no, your word cannot be trusted because you have repeatedly broken it. Per the agreement you made with Bwilkins last time, I am pointing you you towards WP:OFFER as basically your only chance to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I completely understand what the above administrator has mentioned. Why should a fellow administrator believe anything I have to say? Well, I am so invested in beginning on a fresh start on Wikipedia that when or if I am allowed back, I would like to have a brand new user name taking the place of TVFAN24. I feel I've gone down to many wrong avenues with that name and would like to leave its bad history in the past. I don't know what steps you have to take in order to accomplish that but I would be ready to take them. I won't bother you again but please know the day these events happened, I had a bad day at work and wasn't thinking rationally and had no right to take it out on Wikipedia. My behavior the 7 months before this occurred was the real representation of how I was supposed to act. As you can see, no incidents had been reported in the 7 months prior to. Your fellow community has been very generous to me in the past and I am hoping they can see my sincere attempt. Thank you. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I believe that you genuinely regret what happened. The trouble is, no matter how much you regret this sort of behavior afterward, you don't seem to be able to keep yourself from doing it in the moment. A bad day is a bad day, but you can't respond to a bad day by taking it out on Wikipedia. Until you are able to cope with the stresses of things like a bad day, and until you are able to behave rationally on Wikipedia reliably, this isn't the place for you. You've had multiple declined unblock requests now, none of which seem to be really getting this point through to you, so I'm going to remove your talk page access at this point. Please take a substantial amoung of time off Wikipedia. Pursue real-life hobbies. Do some thinking about what your triggers for irrational anger are. Mentally regroup. In six months, if you haven't evaded your ban, contact WP:UTRS or WP:BASC to request that your block be lifted. Be prepared at that time to offer some explanation about how you intend to keep this behavior from happening again if you're unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Previous Block Discussions

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. It is fairly clear that you haven't learnt from or conformed with your previous restrictions and this is simply unacceptable under any circumstances. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I said was wrong and inexcuseable and I truly am sorry but this editor has hounded my every move and edits and I don't think that is fair. This person has just tried to push my buttons in order to get me blocked. This person thinks they are always right and I have been a loyal contributor to editing Wikipedia. I think an indefinite block is a little harsh of a punishment. The reason I lashed out in such a way is I was in a bad mood at that particular moment of weakness and had no right to take it out on that editor. All I am asking is that my case be looked at and reevaluated so that maybe a different decision can be made regarding an indefinite block. If I am ever allowed back I will personally apologize to the editor I deeply regret offending. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In looking at your block history, you've been sanctioned on several occasions for edit warring, sockpuppetry (multiple times), and now disgusting NPA violations. You've been here a while and, quite frankly, you knew better than to do that. It appears you have been given multiple chances, but somehow things always end up here. Is your apology sincere? It probably is, and I have no reason to doubt you. However, blocks are designed to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, and given the history of disruption from your account from multiple angles, I see no justifiable reason to "let this one slide" yet again... after all, how long until something like this happens again? Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, something like that would not happen again. Before this editor came along, I had been editing without any problems and then this particular editor started looking at every move I made and I didn't think that was right. If I am given one last chance to redeem myself I will prove to Wikipedia that I am not only sincere but I will try to bring new ideas to talk pages. Its just that I love to edit here on Wikipedia and this person just tries to start trouble for me. Yesterday, I admit I had a moment of weakness but if you look at the past eight months, I have obeying all rules applying to Wikipedia. Please don't say the final decision is that I am banned indefinetley. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Further unblock requests will not be considered until you stop blaming other people - see WP:NOTTHEM -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Addendum: Note that if the apology in any way continues the behavior that led to this block (and whether or not it does is solely at my discretion), I reserve the right to not copy it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Musicfreak7676,

I just wanted to offer my sincere apologizes for my very rude and disrepectful comments I made on your talk page yesterday. I thought about it all night and realized that it must of hurt you deeply. I do not consider myself to be homophobic and I was just in a very mad mood at that particular time. I have many friends of all different races, sexual orientations and etc and it never should have been said. You have been a nice mentor to me and I know you are just trying to follow rules and guidelines. Some of the rules I disobeyed was not right and I should have brought my opinions on the matter to the talk pages and not continue to have edit wars with other editors. I realize its not healthy on either side and in the end accomplishes nothing. I know you know that I loved being an editor on Wikipedia and hope that one day I can be allowed back to the community. Again, I hope you can accept my apology. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The apology has been copied to Musicfreak7676's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your ban

Hey man. I know exactly how you feel about Musicfreak, he does the EXACT same thing to me, and it's a giant piss off. It's unfortunate that you were handed out an indefinite ban, but hopefully with the apology you wrote up the Administrators will review your case and rule in your favour. Colton hockey11 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (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 the actions that took place a few days ago. I made a major mistake that I regret. If you look this is the first time I made a personal attack to another editor and if you see I have since apologized for my actions. I will never engage in that type of behavior again. It is not only hurtful but accomplishes nothing and only makes the situation worse. In the past 2 days I have been blocked, I took the time to read all of Wikipedia's policies and rules. It made me well aware of how I am supposed to conduct myself. In previous blocks I have had, I never took the time to go back and read the literature to become accustomed with the rules. If I am lucky enough to be invited back to the Wikipedia community. I give you my word that I will obey all rules and make helpful contributions. I know with my history you may find it hard to believe but I am not perfect and made a major mistake. I am actually grateful that I was blocked because it made me realize to never take editing on Wikipedia for granted ever again if I am given the chance. I would appreciate being allowed back to the community. You can even set restrictions in place for me to follow. I don't know what more I can say. If you look at my past edits, I tried to add relevant information as it became available in order to keep Wikipedia always up to date. I'm not putting the blame on anyone else for my actions than myself. I'm hoping an administrator who reads this will put their faith in my oath. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've been looking in your talk archives, and I came across this posting from the last time you were blocked: "All I am asking for is ONE LAST CHANCE. I have admitted that i was COMPLETELY WRONG in reverting an article that already reached consensus. From now on I will no longer engage in an edit war and if you look at my edit history I have made many edits along the way. Please consider inviting me back to Wikipedia. I miss you guys. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)" So, you asked for a last chance. Last. You know what that word means, I am sure. Now you are asking for it again. Since we all know what last means how can we possibly do that? You admitted you were wrong then too, but here we are again. So no, your word cannot be trusted because you have repeatedly broken it. Per the agreement you made with Bwilkins last time, I am pointing you you towards WP:OFFER as basically your only chance to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I completely understand what the above administrator has mentioned. Why should a fellow administrator believe anything I have to say? Well, I am so invested in beginning on a fresh start on Wikipedia that when or if I am allowed back, I would like to have a brand new user name taking the place of TVFAN24. I feel I've gone down to many wrong avenues with that name and would like to leave its bad history in the past. I don't know what steps you have to take in order to accomplish that but I would be ready to take them. I won't bother you again but please know the day these events happened, I had a bad day at work and wasn't thinking rationally and had no right to take it out on Wikipedia. My behavior the 7 months before this occurred was the real representation of how I was supposed to act. As you can see, no incidents had been reported in the 7 months prior to. Your fellow community has been very generous to me in the past and I am hoping they can see my sincere attempt. Thank you. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I believe that you genuinely regret what happened. The trouble is, no matter how much you regret this sort of behavior afterward, you don't seem to be able to keep yourself from doing it in the moment. A bad day is a bad day, but you can't respond to a bad day by taking it out on Wikipedia. Until you are able to cope with the stresses of things like a bad day, and until you are able to behave rationally on Wikipedia reliably, this isn't the place for you. You've had multiple declined unblock requests now, none of which seem to be really getting this point through to you, so I'm going to remove your talk page access at this point. Please take a substantial amoung of time off Wikipedia. Pursue real-life hobbies. Do some thinking about what your triggers for irrational anger are. Mentally regroup. In six months, if you haven't evaded your ban, contact WP:UTRS or WP:BASC to request that your block be lifted. Be prepared at that time to offer some explanation about how you intend to keep this behavior from happening again if you're unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Advice to TVFan24

You really need to take it easy TVFAN24. It's not healthy for you to torment yourself over Wikipedia. It's just a hobby, nothing more. And no one ever said that you were blocked/banned from Wikipedia "forever".

Please refrain from creating sockpuppets accounts again; it is counterproductive and is only creating more roadblocks to your goal of being readmitted to the community. Instead, follow the advice from Fluffernutter which is to forget Wikipedia for a while and enjoy life. In February or March 2013, if you're still interested in coming back, follow the instructions to the links that Fluffernutter has provided to you. Take care. Farine (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice On Indef Block

I agree with the terms of this block, unfortunately TVFAN is unable to control herself and edit harmoniously. She was already on an agreement that got her last block lifted, she was well aware that if she violated that agreement, especially socked, she would be indefinitely blocked. Per that agreement she cannot submit to be unblocked for 6 months. She has pleaded with me via email to lift this block, I will not, she clearly violated the terms of her unblock.

Unfortunately I doubt this will be the end of the matter and she may continue to sock. I hope if she is reading this page she will take a Wikibreak instead of doing so. --WGFinley (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice

I am not sure why you chose to e-mail me - have we interacted before? I have not been following your edits at all but to judge by the contents of this page, the best advice I can offer is the same as the above: go away and get a life in the ral world for at least six months. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I also received an entreaty a couple days ago. It looks like this user may be mass-mailing all admins. Sad. :( Best of luck in the future, TVFAN24, but based on the history above and actions like this, I'm not sure I'd put money on your successful rehab. I hope I turn out to be mistaken. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I also have received several emails showing impatience in the user still, and have declined her appeal. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:OFFER 2013

You have contacted me by email to lift your block. It has been 6 months since your indefinite block has taken place. You have given me assurances that you have been making efforts to understand the reasons why you were blocked before. I have lifted your talk page block so that we can have the discussion here on wiki where it belongs.

Since you have already been through WP:OFFER once I think it's important for you to operate under stricter restrictions so that we can be assured you have truly changed your activity before you begin editing again. So, here are my conditions for unblocking:

You will edit Wikipedia only with this account. No additional accounts. No anonymous (IP) editing.
You will hold yourself to WP:1RR on all articles.
You will accept consensus, and propose new ideas for consensus on the article talk page.
The first restriction is permanent. The second can be reviewed in 6 months.
You will be topic banned from articles related to television, radio, and other media topics, shows and programs broadly construed for one month after your ban is lifted.
- This is an opportunity for you to demonstrate self-control.
- If you violate your topic ban it will be increased to 3 months.
- If you violate it a third time your indefinite block will be reinstated.
This agreement must remain on the top of your talk page for a minimum of one year, I will place it there.
Any violations of the above will lead to re-indef-blocking, with no chance of unblocking for a minimum of one year. Off-wiki requests for unblocking before the year is up will be ignored.

I want you to:

Carefully consider these terms (I invite others to comment on them).
In the spirit of WP:OFFER I want you to make assurances that you understand the error of your ways, you won't do so again and
If you do violate them you will be indefinitely blocked and cannot be unblocked for a minimum of a year, period. Email appeals will not be responded to before the year is up.

--WGFinley (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I have read the above conditions and one-hundred percent agree with everything. I have had nearly six months off of Wikipedia and feel I have truly changed for the better. This time allowed me to do other things in life and the chance to seek counseling for some of my control issues. I plan on only being on Wikipedia periodically. I don't plan on engaging in that type of behavior again or upsetting the community. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2013

When was the last time you edited as an IP? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago. TVFAN24 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would just decline the block, but I'll let WGFinley handle it. WP:CheckUser indicates you are not being honest. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:07, 10 March 2013 (UT

Now, I am extremely upset, since my block in September, I have not edited at all. There must be someone editing with my same IP. I have taken all the necessary steps to let go of my previous behavior. I really do not appreciate being accused of something I know I did not do. TVFAN24 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an unblock request, neither you, nor anyone else, should be removing items from the discussion. You were blocked for socking TVFAN so it is completely appropriate to ask if you have been editing anonymously. Have you been editing anonymously or not? It would be better if you were honest about it rather than going through the trouble of a WP:CheckUser request. --WGFinley (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is no response TVFAN I will have to assume that you are conceding that you have been editing as an IP. I would prefer you come and say you have and we can discuss it further. Otherwise I'll have to assume it's accurate and leave the block in place. --WGFinley (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Last time I edited as an IP was 9 days ago. TVFAN24 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Which means you willfully violated the terms of the standard offer, which I would now consider to be off the table, or at the very east reset to begin today. Evading your block iand then lying and acting all upset when you knew perfectly well what you did is not indicative of a sincere desire to be a productive contributor to Wikipedia. Either that are you are genuinely unable to understand what a block is and the very simple terms of the offer. It doesn't really matter which it is at this point, you blew it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How much anonymous editing have you done? What articles have you been editing anonymously on? --WGFinley (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just some Soap operas. Not News stations or TV shows at all. TVFAN24 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll confirm that's accurate at least on the IP being used since November - lots of soap opera related edits, nothing else. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

hmmmmm.....

This looks kind of "fishy" to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/24.14.204.210&offset=&limit=500&target=24.14.204.210

70.48.219.217 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Si. Fixed. Kuru (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OFFER 2014

You have contacted me by email to lift your block. It has been more than a year since your last block however, I have concerns that you were editing anonymously in July of last year.

I want you to state if that was you or not.
I want you to disclose any other anonymous editing you were doing.
If there are none I want you to affirm you have not been editing anonymously.

Post-Unblock Terms

Since you have already been through WP:OFFER once I think it's important for you to operate under stricter restrictions so that we can be assured you have truly changed your activity before you begin editing again. So, here are my conditions for unblocking:

You will edit Wikipedia only with this account. No additional accounts. No anonymous (IP) editing.
You will hold yourself to WP:1RR on all articles.
You will accept consensus, and propose new ideas for consensus on the article talk page.
The first restriction is permanent. The second can be reviewed in 6 months.
You will be topic banned from articles related to television, radio, and other media topics, shows and programs broadly construed for one month after your ban is lifted.
- This is an opportunity for you to demonstrate self-control.
- If you violate your topic ban it will be increased to 3 months.
- If you violate it a third time your indefinite block will be reinstated.
This agreement must remain on the top of your talk page for a minimum of one year, I will place it there.
Any violations of the above will lead to re-indef-blocking, with no chance of unblocking for a minimum of one year. Off-wiki requests for unblocking before the year is up will be ignored.

Conditions

Carefully consider these terms (I invite others to comment on them).
In the spirit of WP:OFFER I want you to make assurances that you understand the error of your ways, you won't do so again and
If you do violate them you will be indefinitely blocked and cannot be unblocked for a minimum of a year, period. Email appeals will not be responded to before the year is up.

--WGFinley (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

No response, indef black continues. --WGFinley (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:TVFAN24/On-Air Staff Project/WGN

A tag has been placed on User:TVFAN24/On-Air Staff Project/WGN requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)