User talk:Earth11bale

Hi[edit]

Hi. All. New. Earth11bale (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Natalie Morales, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Natalie Morales. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. There are independent sources which clearly say Natalie started in 2006. Do not readd 2003 without first providing a source to the contrary. Tabercil (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock Me[edit]

Please Unblock Me. I stuck the reference Earth11bale (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)in wrong and did not mean to cause any vandalism.[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (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).

Earth11bale (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a Stockpuppet. Earth11bale (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's hard to believe given that your actions exactly match those of User:JoMontNW, who had been proven to be a sock-puppeteer. The block is not against the account but rather against the person using the account. Tabercil (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, you are JoMontNW - as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoMontNW. Unblocking is declined for this account, and you are still blocked for one week on your original account. Tabercil (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (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 know I am right. I keep giving you reliable source, but No one will listen to me or even read it. Earth11bale (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said here: "The dates given for Matt and Natalie in the articles in question are when they started in their current role, not when they started period. I suggest you spend the week you're blocked to do some reading about what Wikipedia is and how it goes about doing things. Start here and read through it, especially the articles linked from that page." Tabercil (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get what your are saying. I gave a source on GMA and they did it was unsourceful. Are freaking kidding Me. i don't think that idiot even read it.Earth11bale (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the source you used here. It's not that good of a source. It's better if you can peg it to a newspaper or something which has a editorial board to it. For instance, http://www.mercurynews.com/tv/ci_16849638?source=rss&nclick_check=1 might be better... (e.g., see here). Tabercil (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]