User talk:Shookallen88

Shookallen88, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Shookallen88! 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! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, but it is not a place like Myspace or Facebook for people to write about themselves. It is a different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, so it is selective about subjects for articles, and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. The WP:Welcome page and the WP:Introduction will tell you more about Wikipedia. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Moisés Arias, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cote de Pablo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NCIS

Holes (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Davis

Lethal Weapon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Captain Murphy

Lethal Weapon 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Captain Murphy

Lethal Weapon 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Captain Murphy

Meghan Markle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Suits

Terminator Salvation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Derek Anderson

Vale, Catawba County, North Carolina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lincoln County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Terry Shook

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Terry Shook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Fast & Furious 6 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I don't know how long you have been on Wikipedia, clearly not long since you don't know we link the first instance of something and we don't link things twice unless it's in a table. WP: BRD doesn't say "Start a discussion after your third edit, then make the same edit. Knock. It. Off. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Terry Shook

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Terry Shook, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No content, No explanation of significance, appears to be a test page, also in incorrect location

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: ). Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Fast & Furious 6, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shookallen88, you've been reported to administrators. If you continue to remove the wikilink to Vin Diesel's name at Fast & Furious 6 you will most likely be blocked. If you disagree with the complaint, you can respond at WP:AN3#User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: ). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you are edit-warring at Olga Fonda. We cannot make claims of alleged birth date without a reliable-source citation. Where did that alleged birth date you reverted to come from? There's no citing whatsoever for this WP:BLP claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Daniela Ruah image.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Daniela Ruah image.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Gray Gubler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon (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) 10:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Minna Sora no Shita. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Kelly Vitz without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fast & Furious 6. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The argument "what difference does it make" did not prevent your last warning and it won't work here, why you're so oblivious to that I don't know or care. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fast & Furious 6, you may be blocked from editing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Fast Five shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: ). Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring after previous warning, as you did at Fast Five. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I block for such a long period? I wasn't making any threats to anybody, just wanted to know in a simple term, what's wrong with the edit that I done?

I have blocked you indefinitely for resuming the edit war at Fast Five and for your clearly stated intent that you would continue the war no matter what. Essentially you adopted a position that you can do whatever you want at Wikipedia, no matter how disruptive that is, because you're "right". Your appeal rights are in the notice above for the last block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to request an unblock, you need to log in and do so. I've blocked your IP for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:Shookallen88

I've moved this section from my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to appeal my block, sorry I can't don't have a valid email address with my user account so it wont accept my appeal. I just want to know how long is my user account blocked so I can make useful contributions. I learned my lesson don't fight over edits that are right. Please don't block my IP address for asking. So this is my appeal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.158.23 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only time you need e-mail to appeal a block is if your talk page access has been revoked. It has not. So, all you have to do is log in to your registered account, follow the instructions in the block notice above, and make an unblock request. As my comment above states, your account is blocked indefinitely. I won't block the IP address you're using again as long as you make no edits to any page other than this one. I watch this page, so I'll see any requests, but other admins need to see your unblock request, not just me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I see to make an appeal is through the ticket request system and that you have to have a valid email address other than that I just don't know how, so I guess to cant have a user account at my IP address because I just don't how unless I'm just that stupid. When I try it your way the message saids I'm blocked and pushes my IP address blocked longer then it should be.

I wish you'd sign your edits. You can obviously log into your account. You can obviously access this page. As it states in the instructions use the {{unblock}} template on this page to request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 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).

Shookallen88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I think I should be unblocked is because I apologized to all parties involved in the edit war, and I made a point that y'all was right and I was wrong with the edits. Also it's been 10 days since I was blocked and I really like to be able use me user account again. This is the only way I can because I will have a note saying you been blocked,and only two ways I can request is my talk page and the ticket request system. So this is my request. User talk:Shookallen88 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User's impatience both in this request and discussion here and elsewhere suggests that unblocking would not be a good idea. — Daniel Case (talk) 12:09, 13 August 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.

Note for reviewing admin: please see additional discussion here.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note this, which the user has attempted to move into mainspace on several occasions. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my request board, 11 months time what does that mean I'm blocked for 11 months, I'm just wondering. User:Shookallen88 1:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

I don't know what you mean by "request board". You're indefinitely blocked as my notice said and as your block log indicates.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long it take before they decide to unblock me and say he got the point your wrong were right he finally understand that, and he won't to do it again. User:Shookallen88 1:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)?

So if I'm declined what am I suppose to do then? I can't edit in my user account so what am I suppose to do then? User:Shookallen88 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The standard offer is likely your best way forward.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me, and I promise I'll make useful edits, instead of starting a edit war and get banned. It's like I'm on probation if I break it then I'm banned don't deny me because I'm impatient all I want to do is make right edits on articles that's it. Do please give a week to prove it. User:Shookallen88 22:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make deal to get unblocked please I'll do anything. Please. User:Shookallen88 00:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked your talk page access for your block evasion with 71.2.157.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I've blocked the IP as well. If you continue to use IPs to evade your block, you will probably never be unblocked, even if you use WP:SO, as Ponyo suggests above.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal your block, use WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your likely relationship with User:Allen terry, your unblocking seems unlikely. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 05:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And according to this post on my talk page:

Do you have something against me, because yes i sockpocketed account Tommyjourney in February of 2014 16 months ago. If I wanted to make an unblocked request I can't because my user talk is BLOCKED so I have to use my IP address account, that's all I said.

You admit to sockpuppetting. Which really isn't helping you case to be unblocked. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

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

Shookallen88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23942 was submitted on Feb 16, 2019 19:20:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vale, Catawba County, North Carolina

The article Vale, Catawba County, North Carolina has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find any evidence this place exists.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]