User talk:Johnericlee

April 2013

Hello, I'm JDDJS. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Phineas and Ferb, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. This information has been removed in the past because of the lack of sources. JDDJS (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast section of articles on TV shows

Hello Johnericlee, nice job with the broadcast section of the Fish Hooks article. However, according to the guidelines at MOS:TV#Broadcast we should do it in prose form (not a table) and only include English-language broadcasts. I went ahead a rewrote that section keeping your sources. You have any questions or comments you can reach me at my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I see you reverted my edit to the Fish Hooks article. If you disagree with the community consensus at MOS:TV the proper way to deal with it is to start a new discussion there and try to change consensus. If you keep reverting like this it will be seen as disruptive behavior by the Wikipedia community at large and can lead to you being blocked from editing. Instead of all that nastiness please discuss the issue with the Wikipedia TV project or at least respond to me here, on my talk page, or at the Fish Hooks talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please do not alter MOS without discussion. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:37, 15 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Now that I have read about sock puppetry, I understand. It was my own mistake thinking that wikipedia is a place that you can do stupid things to. I am sorry for all of the disruption that I made to the community. This will be the only account that I will use and if possible, delete or disable those other accounts that I have been using. Next time I will use Wikipedia for doing constructive edits, not create multiple identities.Johnericlee (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the number of confirmed socks, who were all actively editing in concert with each other, I am not inclined to unblock at this time. I would be willing to reconsider in a few more months if no new sockpuppets are created, and if you can point to what constructive work you wish to do on Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will make useful contributions to Wikipedia and now I know better. Please. I am so sorry for what i did. Unblocking me will be a big help to the wiki. I will clean up articles, participate in deletion discussions, and revert vandalism.

Decline reason:

I think the standard offer for blocked users is going to be your best bet at this point. Too many recent socks to consider unblocking right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 21 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have waited a while and now I know I can do better. Sorry for any disruption caused. Maybe I just need a mentor or something.Johnericlee (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

the standard offer, which was suggested some three weeks ago, includes an absence for six months. I see no reason to modify this. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:24, 14 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

i UNDERSTAND THOugh. It was my mistake. I think you should be my mentor. Johnericlee (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As above. Please note that repeating the same inadequate unblock requests will lead to this page be disabled. Kuru (talk) 12:23, 16 October 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.

{{unblock|reason=Or else chicken man will attack [[User:Johnericlee|Johnericlee]] ([[User talk:Johnericlee#top|talk]]) 01:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Ok. Kuru (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Drusselstein

Hello, Johnericlee. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Drusselstein, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Waggers TALK 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]