User talk:Jakegob

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article South Park, 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. Please see the Talk page for this article- there is no consensus for Stotch to be a main character, and AFAIK, the producers don't consider him one. PLease discuss if you disagree. Rodhull andemu 22:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to South Park. 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. 1. You do not get to set terms in which articles are written, so "under no circumstances" is particularly combative. 2. Please point to this consensus on the Talk page. I don't see one, so please establish it, without edit-warring and with reliable sources. Rodhull andemu 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Rodhullandemu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Rodhullandemu. Tiderolls 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: Read the policies and guidelines, particularly WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:HARRASS. Then read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. Then if you've understood, feel free to ask to be unblocked, addressing these guidelines. Rodhull andemu 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

south park butters

butters is a main character according to these links, thank you: [[1]] [[2]]

[[3]] (read paragraphs 2,3, 5, 6,8) [[4]]

1. Cannot access this site from the UK. Please see WP:EL 2. A wiki is as user-written as Wikipedia, and needs to cite its sources. 3. We cannot use ourselves as a source. 4. Answers.yahoo.com isn't a reliable source.

This information needs to come from either (a) an official website for South Park or from some reliable commentator who has noted Stotch's emergence as a main character.
- Until then, ....Rodhull andemu 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response 1. its the same site 2. wiki is not always wikipedia, there wiki's for almost everything just a legitimate as wikipedia 3. You are human, just like them. 4. that's a matter of opinion

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).

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

Request reason:

Every time some one posts the truth about south park and butters being a main character you delete, which is personal attack, it pissed me off, but you could read no. 2, as it's the official south park wikipedia Jakegob (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:41, 14 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.

talk page

why say "ignore all rules?"

Read it again: It says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's a big "if". Rodhull andemu 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am improving wikipedia

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for edit warring that Butters is a main character, which had caused a disruption to wikipedia. I have also promised that you can block me permanintly for vandalism or edit warring even if i'm right, although you must notify me on what i have done so that i dont do it again. Shall continue to contribute to articles. Where can I learn how to improve articles Jakegob (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't been blocked for edit warring. You've been blocked for harassment, which is what any future unblock requests should address. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 14 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.

unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for Attacking Rodhullandemu and forging edit block, which had caused a disruption to wikipedia. I have also promised that you can block me permanintly for vandalism or edit warring even if i'm right, although you must notify me on what i have done so that i dont do it again. Shall continue to contribute to articles. Where can I learn how to improve articles? Jakegob (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Re-stating the reason for your block is not an argument to unblock. You must make a constructive comment on the reason for your block, indicating why we should unblock you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:32, 14 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.

actually it just says understand what you have been blocked 4.

... and address it. Please see here, but you are running out of chances. Rodhull andemu 22:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you are now reblocked for further general abuse and forgery of an unblock request, but without access to this Talk page. Which part of "you are running out of chances" did you find hard to understand? You could have asked for advice over and above that which you've already had, but chose not to do so, and continued to break our rules. That's unacceptable. If you now wish to be unblocked, it won't happen here; see here for how you ask the Arbitration Committee for an unblock. Rodhull andemu 23:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]