Dog Man 64
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nigel Tu - A Journey Across Korea. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Fan-1967 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article states that there is a film by that title, which is for sale on DVD. Is this untrue? Is there, in fact, no such DVD for sale? Fan-1967 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is a hoax, then it needs to be removed, not vandalized. There are separate processes for that. Fan-1967 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has been proposed for deletion, and tagged with a {{hoax}} warning. If no one challenges, it will be deleted automatically in five days. If someone does challenge it, then we'll take it to WP:AFD and get an editor consensus to delete. This is the standard process. Fan-1967 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've also marked Nigel Tu for deletion, since I can't find any indication that there is such a fighter. Is this by any chance a teenage kid you know?
- (BTW, to answer your question, I've been doing this almost a year. It's called Recent Changes Patrolling. We work to try to keep Wikipedia clean.) Fan-1967 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The content that was there before is unacceptable, as a hoax, and needs to be deleted.
The content you replace it with is just unacceptable, period. Do not do it again. Allow the article to be deleted without further vandalism. Fan-1967 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kukini 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dog Man 64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 88.110.161.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Vandalism only account. I have been wrongly accused as a vandaliser as i have poor wikepedia knowledge and was trying to put corret information on a page which had false information. if a wikipedia administrator has poor knowledge on a topic and identifies real information as vandalism it should not result in a block.
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This stuff, which you re-added three times, cannot be regarded as your attempt to correct information, now can it? (please note i am a gimp) Fan-1967 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- 'seen as though i can't leave you a message i'll have to leave it on my own. The following statements, which i added to the apropriate articles are true,
1. Nigel Tu never crossed Korea 2. Nigel Tu has made an appearance in Rob's Dad's bedroom 3. Rob did make the cheeky grin on robs mums face appear but i put it under appearances due to my poor wikepedia knowlegde.
Fan-1967 please stop bullying me over the internet for trying to add relevant information to articles on wikepedia, (this is the whole point of the website) your comment "which you re-added three times, cannot be regarded as your attempt to correct information, now can it?" is clearly wrong as you have no knowledge on the information you are editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog Man 64 (talk • contribs)
- Thank you. If that is the kind of information you want to add to Wikipedia, that tells us all we need to know. Fan-1967 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
i assure you this information is very true and will only correctly understood by the agency involved.
- Then it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia is for Notable subjects, not schoolboys writing about themselves or each other. Fan-1967 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop blanking your talk page, or rewriting the comments of other users. Both are bad form; one makes you seem uncooperative, and the other is considered rude. Please stop. - CobaltBlueTony 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dog Man 64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please, i am very sorry, i have poor wikipedia knowledge and only ever intended to correct information. Please unblock me and i promise no to do anything bad anymore. :-(. i didnt create my account for vandalism only. sorry.
Decline reason:
I have reviewed your edits and none of them could possibly be interpreted as intending to correct information. You replaced good article content with obvious nonsense. The fact that you are trying to pass this off as trying to "correct information" gives me no confidence that you have any intention but to damage Wikipedia, so the block stays in place
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.
When will i be unblocked then. i promise to be a good wikipediar. i was just upset and out of control the other day. sorry xxx.