User talk:Cold465

Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
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 Carly'sAngels Controversy, 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: Carly'sAngels Controversy was changed by Cold465 (u) (t) deleting 20719 characters on 2009-09-22T04:09:59+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Carly'sAngels Controversy. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 04:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie Smokey--Cold465 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Carly Smithson fansite controversy
Please stop adding this fansite controversy to Carly Smithson's article. The controversy is not notable and Smithson is not directly involved in the controversy, so it does not belong on her article. Any further adding of this information could be seen as vandalism. Aspects (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Aspects (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Carly Smithson, 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Carly Smithson was changed by Cold465 (u) (t) score equals -134244 on 2010-04-22T21:38:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Carly Smithson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

, I'm considering extending a 2ndchance to this user, given the length of time which has passed. Any objections? --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After six years? Nope. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To Cold465, my unblock decline states, "Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies." That's because I used a standard template. While I wouldn't accept trivial edits, I want to expressly state that I would accept edits that fall somewhere higher than "trivial" and somewhere lower than "significant". Once you've made your edits and have requested an unblock again, either myself or another administrator will review them. --Yamla (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)