User talk:Cedunited

Corronation Street
Hi. Please remember to add |color=#F0E68C when converting to infobox soap character. Try also changing image= with the new image1 and caption with caption1. Great job!!! Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think Coronation Street is used only for current characters as a navigational template. That's why it wasn't present in many articles. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The color is ok on my screen. Just try reloading tour browser. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what's the reason to have List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters? They are already
 * 1) List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-)
 * 2) List of past Coronation Street characters (1990-1999)
 * 3) List of past Coronation Street characters (1980-1989)
 * 4) List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)

I think we have to put the characters in the correct article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock (3rd)
So shall i wait for a couple of months to let tension settle and then continue to contest my block? Cedunited (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the reason. You should wait a few months because your block is for creating multiple accounts to continue to edit, and to avoid existing blocks.  This is compounded when you continue the same behavior.  If you cease this behavior for an extended period of time (that is, if you stop creating new accounts to edit while your first account is blocked) then it shows you intend to "play by the rules" and will likely be able to convince other admins that you don't wish to be a disruption anymore.  Given that the most recent violations of this nature are only a few days old, no one really believes your intent to stop creating new accounts, unless we can see evidence that you have actually, you know, stopped. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, Jayron, may you please go through and block this account i used to ask Frickative a question yesterday, she should probobly respond to that quickly, it might be worth informing her of this situation, with her being one of the main involved with this. Cedunited (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing (sorry to butt in on this), i'm sure it should be clear to you that PUG406 is a sock account operated by WJH1992, main evidence being his grammar during discussion, and clearly engaged in typical WJH1992 related edits, he has now returned a month later to try and evade his blocks. This user also appears to be related to myself (see my primary account), i seem to be constantly caught in his rangeblocks! Cedunited (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock (4th)
So the admin said to you on October 20, we'll possibly allow you back if you don't edit for maybe 2, 3 months. So what'd you do? Edit two weeks later. How are we supposed to take you on your word if you act like that? either way (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I came back as a sock several weeks later, I was blatently doing the wrong thing, but, I then realised that what I was doing was wrong and stopped. Cedunited. 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)