User talk:87Stone

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Idol (season 14), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheaton College. 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) 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Musdan77. I noticed that you recently removed some content from American Idol (season 14) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Musdan77 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding birthdates with no, or possibly worse very bad sources. There is no one who needs this information from Wikipedia that can't wait until it comes from a reliable source. Sadly many reporters do not do a good job of checking this information for themselves but someone will and when they do it can be added. There is also no need to rush to get photos added to the article, many of them will be stolen from the Internet so will just waste time here processing and rejecting them. There is also no consensus that the awkward comments should be moved at all. In fact it makes sense especially with what's written showing the comments likely swayed the voting public opinion. The elimination chart months should remain spelled out as the U.S. varies from a lot of countries in putting month first where many English-speaking countries put the day first. It's more considerate to non-U.S. readers to leave the month spelled out. Happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:4D01:5D40:E7AF:833B (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited StarStruck (Season 2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna. 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) 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (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).

87Stone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the rules of the policy and I will not use other accounts I promise. 87Stone (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For us to consider an unblock, you must disclose all accounts you have here. Yamla (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2016 (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.

For the reviewing admin, please note that this user has previously asked at their original account at User talk:20spokesperson for this account (87Stone) to be their one account for the future, and I directed them to come and request it here. I've already declined an unblock request over there, so I can't really review this one, but I recommend that an unblock request not be accepted without the revelation of all accounts used - there are more details at User talk:20spokesperson, where both User:Beeblebrox and I expressed such concerns. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 87Stone. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:StarStruck Kids

Template:StarStruck Kids has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of White House (film)

The article White House (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFILM

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23

Hello I deproDed it and will add sources, Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]