Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of 7th Heaven DVDs, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: List of 7th Heaven DVDs was changed by TH43 (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-08-25T01:03:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 01:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to the page
List of 7th Heaven DVDs. Such edits constitute
vandalism and are
reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the
sandbox for testing. Thank you.
Chevy
Impala
2009 01:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with
this edit to
List of 7th Heaven DVDs. If you continue to do so, you will be
blocked from editing.
Chevy
Impala
2009 01:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
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
List of 7th Heaven DVDs.
Chevy
Impala
2009 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. —
Jake
Wartenberg 01:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Duggar is pregnant. The child has not yet been born. Until such time as the child is born, it does not belong in the list of the Duggar Family's children in the 18 Kids and Counting article. Please stop re-adding it after multiple independent editors have reverted your change. The consensus is to not list the 19th child until s/he is born. Further re-adds of the information will constitute vandalism of the article. - Ageekgal ( talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
Jon & Kate Plus 8. There is a
Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--
Alchemist Jack (
talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be correct althogh it does look unreadable. --
Alchemist Jack (
talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"Ei8gt" should not be used as it is original research. You've claimed in an edit summary that the sources are saying this without actually citing any, yet I have yet to find a single one. On the other hand, I've found numerous reliable sources saying it will be "8", which makes sense given the current name, so you're going to have to do better than simply claiming the awkward spelling is correct. -- 13 2 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"Jon & Kate Plus Eight episode "Movie Night" is the third episode of Season 4, so please leave it there! TH43 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" No it is not. It is the 27th episode of season 3. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/season-3-episodes-tab-02.html It is also on the season 3 dvd http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?p=85103 ( Americanhero ( talk) 19:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
I realize that TLC does not put them in the order they aired and do not understand it either. I guess this is an argument of what the definition of "season" is. The order in which they aired or what TLC says. Since the show is aired on TLC, by definition, they can say whatever they want about what the seasons are. So I think that the episode guide on TLC is the "official" episode guide and should be used here as well. ( Americanhero ( talk) 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm not saying we should delete the air dates. You can still keep the air dates that are currently here, just change the episode numbers and some of the ordering. There is no rule that episode numbers and air dates have to match and that air dates are the official way to define when a season starts and begins. Let me give you another example. TLC recognizes the Emeril as the 100th episode. However, in reality, it is the 97th episode. But because TLC says it is the 100th episode, it is "officially" the 100th episode. My point is that TLC/Discovery can order the episodes however they want because they own the rights, etc. and that even though the way they've done it is pretty dumb, wikipedia should acknowledge it as official and correct. ( Americanhero ( talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
Ok, I won't change the way it is now, but I'm going to add a See Also section and provide a link to TLC's episode guide. Just if people care about the official guide and how they appear on dvds. ( Americanhero ( talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
Thats only half true. Any respectable tv episode guide website will list the episodes by official episode guide provided by the network. For every show except jon and kate, this happens to be by airdate. Both itunes (don't know how to link it but search Jon and Kate on itunes if you care) and tvguide http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/jon-kate-plus-8/episodes-season-3/287169 use the official episode guide. But the way TLC's method is so dumb, I don't care anymore and will just leave everything as is. Except I noticed that Sextuplet's Fourth Birthday episode is actually named Sextuplet's Turn 4! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDWy58eIf4 pause at 1:19 at you'll see the title. ( Americanhero ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. TLC doesn't have an official episode guide for 18 and counting and table for 12 (at least I couldn't find it). All I could find was the Season 1 and 2 dvd for 18 kids and counting and for the most part it matches with the episode guide on wiki, except "And Baby Makes 18" is included in season 1 and "A Very Duggar Wedding" is included in season 2, though both do not appear on any dvd. But those could be considered "Specials" I guess. ( Americanhero ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Still not sure of the point you're trying to make or how this applies to Jon and Kate plus 8. ( Americanhero ( talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
I don't get your point. Bottomline is there's already a characters page for 90210, Characters of 90210. There. And the reason that the recurring section is removed and the starring is not is because the starring actors don't always star (could be replaced or new ones come). There's a page for both recurring and starring but the starring section is kept due to importance. DantODB ( talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
18 Kids and Counting episodes. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing. See also
WP:Own
Martin451 (
talk) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Redfarmer (
talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Characters of 90210! However, before you submit the changes, it would be helpful for you to spellcheck and copyedit your changes. Please feel free to look at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for tips. Generally, we try to keep the articles looking like a article in an encyclopedia would. Thanks again! Feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- GorillaWarfare talk 22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
as standard policy on wikipedia you need references for all things in future until AFTER they air. It doesn't matter if you believe different and feel one can look at tvguide for recent listings as thats just your weird belief. Please follow policy as the page is not intended to be a tvguide and things can't be confirmed for sure until they actually air. If things or episodes in this case dont have a source then they will be removed. Grande13 ( talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I had to end up removing a few episodes because they didnt have any sources? How do i know they are legit? Grande13 ( talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wonder Twins are mentioned as part of the overall plot of that episode they appear in - because we have a plot description for it. We don't have a plot description for MM's appearance, so just saying he's in it has nothing to do with the plot. Put Zatanna with MM in the "New Characters" (which should probably be changed to "New and returning characters") - as that was where I moved the MM info that you added. There is mention of other returning characters in that section (it's in the first paragraph I think). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yo TH43. Okay this is the deal I have seen your edits you provide a good arguement I was hoping if you could help me clean up the Battle for the Cowl page and make it B-Class. Please reply back. -- Schmeater ( talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This should show the criteria now maybe this will help me a bit more than it will help you, I think you should help me with the coverage if you can. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment ]] go to 2.1 Quality Scale that should help. I looked at I am attempting to fix coverage. Please reply back. -- Schmeater ( talk) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the template that is on the discussion page. I hope this helps. Please reply back. -- Schmeater ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop putting in their first names. You can't even pronounce "Nathaniel" right. Also, for the characters, use "-"s, not ","s. Like Georgina. What's the point of "1, 2, 3" if you can use "1-3", and that's if she's out of the show which she's not, she's still appearing, but not for the season. Stop messing with the page. Some of your contributions mess the page up, it's not exactly helping. DantODB ( talk) 12:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. —
DantODB (
talk) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)It's been corrected. It was a coding issue that was sending it to the top, as it should have been at the bottom. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Stephen Rea. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Ω
pho
is 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Please for the love of God, Mary and the lamb, quit messing up how the references are done. They are done correctly. See
WP:CITE. —
Mike
Allen 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In your edit [1] how come you removed citations supporting information in the article? Nfitz ( talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. —
Mike
Allen 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to
Law & Order, you will be
blocked from editing.
Redfarmer (
talk) 09:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to
List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unite characters, you will be
blocked from editing. —
Mike
Allen 23:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to
Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an
edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
FASTILY
(TALK) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TH43 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Redfarmer ( talk) 07:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of 7th Heaven DVDs, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: List of 7th Heaven DVDs was changed by TH43 (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-08-25T01:03:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 01:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to the page
List of 7th Heaven DVDs. Such edits constitute
vandalism and are
reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the
sandbox for testing. Thank you.
Chevy
Impala
2009 01:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with
this edit to
List of 7th Heaven DVDs. If you continue to do so, you will be
blocked from editing.
Chevy
Impala
2009 01:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
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
List of 7th Heaven DVDs.
Chevy
Impala
2009 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. —
Jake
Wartenberg 01:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Duggar is pregnant. The child has not yet been born. Until such time as the child is born, it does not belong in the list of the Duggar Family's children in the 18 Kids and Counting article. Please stop re-adding it after multiple independent editors have reverted your change. The consensus is to not list the 19th child until s/he is born. Further re-adds of the information will constitute vandalism of the article. - Ageekgal ( talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
Jon & Kate Plus 8. There is a
Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--
Alchemist Jack (
talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be correct althogh it does look unreadable. --
Alchemist Jack (
talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"Ei8gt" should not be used as it is original research. You've claimed in an edit summary that the sources are saying this without actually citing any, yet I have yet to find a single one. On the other hand, I've found numerous reliable sources saying it will be "8", which makes sense given the current name, so you're going to have to do better than simply claiming the awkward spelling is correct. -- 13 2 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"Jon & Kate Plus Eight episode "Movie Night" is the third episode of Season 4, so please leave it there! TH43 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" No it is not. It is the 27th episode of season 3. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/season-3-episodes-tab-02.html It is also on the season 3 dvd http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?p=85103 ( Americanhero ( talk) 19:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
I realize that TLC does not put them in the order they aired and do not understand it either. I guess this is an argument of what the definition of "season" is. The order in which they aired or what TLC says. Since the show is aired on TLC, by definition, they can say whatever they want about what the seasons are. So I think that the episode guide on TLC is the "official" episode guide and should be used here as well. ( Americanhero ( talk) 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm not saying we should delete the air dates. You can still keep the air dates that are currently here, just change the episode numbers and some of the ordering. There is no rule that episode numbers and air dates have to match and that air dates are the official way to define when a season starts and begins. Let me give you another example. TLC recognizes the Emeril as the 100th episode. However, in reality, it is the 97th episode. But because TLC says it is the 100th episode, it is "officially" the 100th episode. My point is that TLC/Discovery can order the episodes however they want because they own the rights, etc. and that even though the way they've done it is pretty dumb, wikipedia should acknowledge it as official and correct. ( Americanhero ( talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
Ok, I won't change the way it is now, but I'm going to add a See Also section and provide a link to TLC's episode guide. Just if people care about the official guide and how they appear on dvds. ( Americanhero ( talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
Thats only half true. Any respectable tv episode guide website will list the episodes by official episode guide provided by the network. For every show except jon and kate, this happens to be by airdate. Both itunes (don't know how to link it but search Jon and Kate on itunes if you care) and tvguide http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/jon-kate-plus-8/episodes-season-3/287169 use the official episode guide. But the way TLC's method is so dumb, I don't care anymore and will just leave everything as is. Except I noticed that Sextuplet's Fourth Birthday episode is actually named Sextuplet's Turn 4! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDWy58eIf4 pause at 1:19 at you'll see the title. ( Americanhero ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. TLC doesn't have an official episode guide for 18 and counting and table for 12 (at least I couldn't find it). All I could find was the Season 1 and 2 dvd for 18 kids and counting and for the most part it matches with the episode guide on wiki, except "And Baby Makes 18" is included in season 1 and "A Very Duggar Wedding" is included in season 2, though both do not appear on any dvd. But those could be considered "Specials" I guess. ( Americanhero ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Still not sure of the point you're trying to make or how this applies to Jon and Kate plus 8. ( Americanhero ( talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
I don't get your point. Bottomline is there's already a characters page for 90210, Characters of 90210. There. And the reason that the recurring section is removed and the starring is not is because the starring actors don't always star (could be replaced or new ones come). There's a page for both recurring and starring but the starring section is kept due to importance. DantODB ( talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
18 Kids and Counting episodes. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing. See also
WP:Own
Martin451 (
talk) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Redfarmer (
talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Characters of 90210! However, before you submit the changes, it would be helpful for you to spellcheck and copyedit your changes. Please feel free to look at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for tips. Generally, we try to keep the articles looking like a article in an encyclopedia would. Thanks again! Feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- GorillaWarfare talk 22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
as standard policy on wikipedia you need references for all things in future until AFTER they air. It doesn't matter if you believe different and feel one can look at tvguide for recent listings as thats just your weird belief. Please follow policy as the page is not intended to be a tvguide and things can't be confirmed for sure until they actually air. If things or episodes in this case dont have a source then they will be removed. Grande13 ( talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I had to end up removing a few episodes because they didnt have any sources? How do i know they are legit? Grande13 ( talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wonder Twins are mentioned as part of the overall plot of that episode they appear in - because we have a plot description for it. We don't have a plot description for MM's appearance, so just saying he's in it has nothing to do with the plot. Put Zatanna with MM in the "New Characters" (which should probably be changed to "New and returning characters") - as that was where I moved the MM info that you added. There is mention of other returning characters in that section (it's in the first paragraph I think). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yo TH43. Okay this is the deal I have seen your edits you provide a good arguement I was hoping if you could help me clean up the Battle for the Cowl page and make it B-Class. Please reply back. -- Schmeater ( talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This should show the criteria now maybe this will help me a bit more than it will help you, I think you should help me with the coverage if you can. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment ]] go to 2.1 Quality Scale that should help. I looked at I am attempting to fix coverage. Please reply back. -- Schmeater ( talk) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the template that is on the discussion page. I hope this helps. Please reply back. -- Schmeater ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop putting in their first names. You can't even pronounce "Nathaniel" right. Also, for the characters, use "-"s, not ","s. Like Georgina. What's the point of "1, 2, 3" if you can use "1-3", and that's if she's out of the show which she's not, she's still appearing, but not for the season. Stop messing with the page. Some of your contributions mess the page up, it's not exactly helping. DantODB ( talk) 12:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. —
DantODB (
talk) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)It's been corrected. It was a coding issue that was sending it to the top, as it should have been at the bottom. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Stephen Rea. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Ω
pho
is 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Please for the love of God, Mary and the lamb, quit messing up how the references are done. They are done correctly. See
WP:CITE. —
Mike
Allen 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In your edit [1] how come you removed citations supporting information in the article? Nfitz ( talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. —
Mike
Allen 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to
Law & Order, you will be
blocked from editing.
Redfarmer (
talk) 09:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to
List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unite characters, you will be
blocked from editing. —
Mike
Allen 23:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to
Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an
edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
FASTILY
(TALK) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TH43 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Redfarmer ( talk) 07:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)