User talk:CaptainHog

If you wish to appeal this block further, you may use WP:UTRS or contact WP:BASC by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainHog, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CaptainHog! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, CaptainHog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Warning

Please stop changing sourced information as you have on numerous radio station pages. Also, please do not change direct wiki-links to redirects. All of your changes has been reverted as either unnecessary, removal of sourced content, removal of correct content or additions of redirects over direct links. Please do not make these changes again. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

After your reply, it is clear you are only here to cause problems. If you continue to remove sourced content, remove correct content or add redirects over direct links, you will be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make changes to articles without providing sources

Hi CaptainHog. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. While anyone is welcome to edit here, you do need to follow the rules. Please don't make changes to articles without providing sources. I see you have said if blocked you will make new accounts to circumvent. Please don't do that. That's called Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and is not permitted. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references can be easy

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.

7. Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Diannaa (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

The references were already on the page. :/

Hello again. NeutralHomer and I have double checked your work, and other than one case, we found that the citations you added did not support the content you added / changed. Any further false citations or unsourced changes will result in you being blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the information is outdated. I was just making it up to date. You can just look it up for yourself. There is no need for you to block little ol' me. CaptainHog (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for this personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was blocked because someone was being a prick and I was proving them wrong. Makes a whole lotta sense... CaptainHog (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

User:Neutralhomer was just proving me wrong just for the sake of proving me wrong. What he said was either false or ill-advised. Blocking me was also pointless because it's not going to teach me anyhting. The treatment I have recieved is just simply unfair.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have realized what I've done (My "personal attack" was wrong and it was not like me to do that). However, I was just politely saying I wasn't causing any damage. However, I kinda snapped. I have realized what I've done is wrong.

Accept reason:

User has read our policies on verifiability and NPA and understands what he did wrong. Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read and understand our policies Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I have read and understand your policies. :)

I have unblocked your account. Please treat your fellow editors with respect and add your sources as you go along. I suggest that if your edit is challenged or removed, please use the article's talk page to discuss why you think your edit is correct rather than reverting without discussion or trying to communicate via edit summaries. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I find an articles talk page? I can't find it for the life of me.

There's a set of tabs across the top of each article. Article; Talk; Read; Edit; View history. Click on the tab that says "talk". You might like to have a look at the guided tour at Wikipedia:Tutorial. That's how I got started editing; it's really useful. Remember to sign your talk page posts. At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~, and your signature and the date and time of your comment will be automatically added to your post. Don't do this while editing articles; it's only for talk pages and user talk pages. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:WSLS 11 p.m. News Open 2015.png

Thanks for uploading File:WSLS 11 p.m. News Open 2015.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring policy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop making unsourced changes. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for edit warring to include unsourced information in the encyclopedia. Edit warring is disruptive, and is against policy. All changes must have verifiable sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just said that it wasn't my fault for starting the edit war. I know it's impossible for only one person to edit war. It was User:Neutralhomer that started it. You can't just advocate for him or User:Diannaa just because they have special permissions. That is very unfair.

Decline reason:

Per WP:NOTTHEM. I suggest you take the advice that several other editors have offered (NeutralHomer and Diannaa) and become more familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources and edit-warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:41, 6 July 2015 (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.

Hello again CaptainHog. Please have a look at the essay BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is not an official policy or guideline, but is nevertheless a widely accepted standard of behavior. Once your change to an article has been challenged, it's up to you to go to the talk page and present your case as to why the change needs to be made. Here on Wikipedia, we require verifiable sources to back up our changes to the data in the articles. We have a saying: Verifiability, not truth; what this means is that any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless their changes can be verified in a published source. Without such sourcing, your edits are subject to removal and should not be re-inserted unless sourcing is provided. Thus you were blocked not only for edit warring, but also for making unsourced changes to articles after being asked repeatedly to provide sources for your changes. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa, can I contact you by E-Mail? I want to prove to you that My WJJS and WSFF edits are correct.

No, that's not how sourcing works. Documents you have at work in the office cabinet are not good sources for Wikipedia articles. We use published sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=I apologize for my supposed "edit warrning." CaptainHog (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Supposedly, it is highly unlikely you will be unblocked with such a request. Also supposedly, the next block for edit warring or attacks will be much longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me isn't really gonna teach me anything, so extending my block time won't help.

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).

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

Request reason:

I admit to my edit warring and Il try my absolute best to make sure it doesn't happen again. CaptainHog (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've extended the block indefinitely in consideration of your elegant comments below. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:21, 7 July 2015 (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.

I ask that the admin considering the above unblock request also consider this post by the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutralhomer It's you that got me here. Thanks douchebag.

No sir, it isn't...this is squarely on you. You had two users (myself and Dianna) who were telling you what you needed to do and you blatantly ignored our advice. Two other users gave you further advice via the unblock responses, you ignored that as well. You have no one to blame but yourself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Maybe you should just go fuck yourself for just being a prick for the sake of being a prick. Just because I don't have the same privileges as you do doesn't mean you've gotta go around changing my edits even though they are correct. WSFF doesn't broadcast in HD Radio, but WJJS does. I have photographic proof of this. None of you seem to understand this. The reason school teachers don't want their students to use this site is because of shits like you who think they're the all mighty over lords of Wikipedia and like to keep certain pages incorrect and/or out of date.

Damn Jpgordon, since when were you a part of this? Whenever you unblock me, I'm still going to make the same edits whether or not you agree with them. All my edits are correct. I can't stress this enough. You're not going to stop me, User:Jpgordon. Just because you have the privileges doesn't mean you get to push me around just because my edits are correct and you cant accept that. How about you just go block yourselves because you all think you're so good.

I became part of it the moment you requested unblock; anyone can see who is requesting unblock by looking at CAT:RFU, and any admin other than the blocking admin can respond to the request. You seem unable to understand our policies about edit warring, and you seem unable to adhere to our policies about civility and personal attacks, so it really doesn't matter at all what the content of your edits are. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:28, 7 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I need to be unblocked because I have some sort of copyright thing I need to take care of. CaptainHog (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your recent edits leave me no choice other than to refuse your request. Anyone who blatantly refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy and practice is not welcome here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:06, 8 July 2015 (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.

The copyright thing has nothing to do with the edits you were probably thinking of. If you are going to deny my request, you might as well wipe me off of your website. Go right ahead, User: Anthony Bradbury, you fuck. I don't care anymore, in the words of Charlo Greene, "Fuck it. I quit."

Also before you, User:Anthony Bradbury, or some other big shot like you cleanse your site of my existene, did you not pay attention when I said I was going to rectify the situation? I said I was going to correct my wrong-doings and you flat out denied my request.

For User:Neutralhomer

I heard you were going to remove access to my user talk page. I'm sorry, but that's still not going to teach me anything. So that action is basically pointless.

Physical threat

This user has made a physical threat. See [1]. --Yamla (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16468 was submitted on Sep 05, 2016 18:11:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16477 was submitted on Sep 05, 2016 23:04:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16488 was submitted on Sep 07, 2016 23:41:37. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WSET-TV Logo 2015.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WSET-TV Logo 2015.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WDBJ Logo with CBS Eye.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WDBJ Logo with CBS Eye.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]