User talk:Churchofdan

April 2014
Hello, I'm A.Minkowiski. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dan Vs. 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! A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 19:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried, many times, to explain these edits, as it seems there are two or three people with a hard on to cancel this show before the network or studio does. The "Cancellation" section is based solely on the OPINION of one of the show's actors, not producers. Meanwhile, when contacted directly, the studio (Starz Film Roman), the network (The Hub) as well as the official Facebook page all contradict Mr. Armstrong's statement, claiming the show is on hiatus and will be back in production in the future. As this site is supposed to cover as much known information as possible, I find it odd that admins have no problem publishing heresay and supposition while deleting collected FACTS.


 * This is the perfect example of what we around here in these parts refer to as a "single-purpose account". The username, the inability to edit anything other than "Dan vs." topics over a sporadic span of several years. And stubbornly blanking the same portion at one of the two pages this person has edited in a slow war? I would block this account were I an admin watching the page. Doc   talk  02:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 10:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. 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 Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. BethNaught (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet the unverified information that I'm trying to correct remains despite it not being verified information?

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dan Vs.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, block the guy who's giving you accurate information and allow the hearsay to fly free. Way to run an encyclopedia...

May 2014
If you vandalize the Dan Vs. page one more time by removing the cancellation section, you will be blocked...indefinitely. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking your ball and going home? Why are you so keen on cancelling a show on the word of an actor, yet constantly take down FACTS directly from the studio, the network, and the producers? If it's so cancelled, how did it get nominated for 2 Emmys yesterday? All you are doing is proving that Wikipedia is an unreliable source run by territorial jackasses. Enjoy having your reference page continue to be wrong. Thanks for adding to the bullshit instead of, I don't know, being an accurate encyclopedia.