User talk:Clammodest

I am afraid I have deleted the page List of ultraman deaths, as outside the scope of Wikipedia. There's no need to list every death of a character in a comic - consider contributing to a dedicated Ultraman wiki instead. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walking with Dinosaurs may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User:Apokryltaros, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Walking with Dinosaurs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walking with Dinosaurs

Hello, at Walking with Dinosaurs (film), the second sentence in "Premise" is a direct quotation from Variety. When we quote directly, we cannot add words to the quote because it changes the original meaning. At this point, there is no updated premise for the film, so that section may be replaced entirely in due time. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at When Dinosaurs Roamed America, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Walking with Dinosaurs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeatedly adding unsourced information to several different Wikipedia articles. Several users have attempted to communicate with you about this, but there's been no response from you. Unfortunately, I have to block you to prevent continued disruption to the encyclopedia. After your block has expired, please go to the articles' talk pages to discuss your suggested changes and provide sources for them.. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walking with Beasts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

]), had reigned as [[top predator]]. However, the great cats (like the [[American Lion]]]), migrating from the north, soon displaced them as top predators. The episode focuses on a male ''[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walking with Beasts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

]), had reigned as [[top predator]]. However, the great cats (like the [[American Lion]]]), migrating from the north, soon displaced them as top predators. The episode focuses on a male ''[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Walking with Beasts, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're actually reading this, but let me clarify: this is your last chance. If you return after a month and resume the same disruptive editing without discussion, you will be blocked indefinitely. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Walking with Beasts, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dumb and Dumber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Starr (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) 09:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Walking with Dinosaurs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for continuing to add the same unsourced material and edit war to attempt to keep it in the article. This is your last chance. If you resume edit warring after this block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. You need to start collaborating with other editors by engaging in talk page discussions. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you simply cannot edit here. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Rather than going back to editing warring, which was what got you blocked for 3 months in the first and second places, could you provide references, or at least a good reason, please?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of What Killed the Mega Beasts?

The article What Killed the Mega Beasts? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article doesn't assert the notability of its topic in any way. It cites only IMDB, which has only one (dead) link to a review.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Repeal Request

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

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

Request reason:

This account was created when I was about 9 to 12 years old, I don't even remember how long ago it was but it has certainly been almost a decade since I created this. Back then I used this account, I was a naive preteen who had a special interest in certain topics and I was pretty obnoxious. I would get into intense edit and flame wars with other Wikipedia users, and this would ultimately result in my block.

Since then, I have matured and while I still have my interests, I do not want to engage in the past behavior that got me blocked in the first place. What I do want to do on this website is to help articles and reduce vandalism and questionable edits within this website (unsourced edits, flaming, false information, etc).

Sure I might have my issues with the fact that I am autistic and dyslexic, but that does not mean I am incapable of trying to improve my behavior. For this repeal request, I would like to access this account once again for the following reasons: A) I am now of the legal age to actually use this account, B) I am actively trying to improve myself in terms of behavior and I now understand the good faith that Wikipedia editors have when it comes to contributing to the website and when trying to communicate with other users, and C) I now have a better understanding of how the rules of this website work and I will not abuse them to any extent.

I may not be an active user every day, in fact, Wikipedia isn't really that much of a main hobby of mine, but I do wish to contribute to specific articles and such that I think need improvement, and if I ever do anything wrong you have the right to call me out, whether it be inappropriate sources, writing unsourced material (Even if you know for a fact that it's "correct"), misusing this website, and so on.

Regardless of whether this gets appealed or not, I am very thankful to write this and I am hoping that whoever is reading this will understand what's going on. Thank you in advance. Jfgoofy (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking with sign-off from Materialscientist and Daniel Case, after community discussion at Special:PermaLink/1100285335 § Indeffed at age 19, looking to start over at age 27. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]