User talk:DonnyD97

Your recent edits
Hey there, I see you're putting a lot of effort into updating infoboxes, there are a few problems though. You're adding fields that don't exist, you're putting in genres/subjects that don't have WP articles, you're expanding content needlessly, and you're adding stuff that isn't sourced. Some of this could be fixed if you use the "preview" button and make sure everything is showing up as it should. The rest is about following Wikipedia style guides and supplying sources for claims (like who influenced whom). If you have any questions or comments please use my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to David Cross. Thank you. Corvus cornix talk  22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher
Your unexplained changes have now been reverted twice, and per guidelines, it's now up to you to make a proposal on the Talk page, particularly a justification for changing the style of the infobox, since it is not apparent that Kutcher is primarily a comedian. Over to you. Rodhull andemu  23:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your infobox edits
Please stop editing infoboxes until you learn what actually goes in them (e.g., it's "genre" not "genres"), how to use the "preview" button, made sure that your claims are supported by reliable sources, and you've gotten consensus that all these people are best known for being comedians instead of actors. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add people who are influenced by or who influenced a comedian without supplying a source to back up that claim. All such unsourced claims will be deleted. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shia LaBeouf, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You need to start discussing your changes with people who disagree with you SQGibbon (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Puffin  ''Lets talk! 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — GorillaWarfare talk 22:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) DonnyD97, there have been multiple complaints about your edits and I've been running into them as well. It seems that none of them are useful to Wikipedia. I understand that you may be new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with its manual of style and policies and guidelines. However, your edits have been disruptive, and you have been continuing to make them after multiple warnings. I've blocked for a week and not indefinitely because I am assuming good faith, but please do review information about infoboxes and the like before you resume editing. — GorillaWarfare talk 22:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have looked at your edits, and I think it is a mistake to describe them as vandalism. However, you do need to take note of the following points. You should provide an explanation of what you are doing. A short explanation can be given in the box labelled "Edit summary" underneath the space where you edit. If you need to give more explanation than can reasonably be given there then you can do so on the article's talk page. Ideally all edits should give references to reliable sources to support them. In practice this does not happen, but if anyone questions or challenges your edits you must not just keep repeating the same edit: you must provide sources and preferably also explain your reasons on the article talk page. Finally, when your block runs out, if you have any questions please do feel very welcome to contact me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatz chat spy  23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the final warning. Please note that you cannot persist in adding unsourced material to the project. Instead of doing so, please ask for assistance so that we can avoid other options. --Ckatz chat spy  07:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon your return from a block, you immediately proceeded to add more unreferenced material - in this case, additional "influences" without any verification. Please stop. I have not yet rebloked you as some of your edits were productive, but you must stop adding unsourced/speculative material. --Ckatz chat spy  22:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacqueline Mazarella


The article Jacqueline Mazarella has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. – Dream out loud (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing practices. Please engage in discussion; as it now stands, you have made many problematic edits and have not even tried to discuss the issues despite repeated warnings and a previous block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz chat spy  07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look you have no right to block me! You are not explaining what I need to do to do better!!!! And I am seriously pissed now that you jerks blocked me after being just unblocked four days before!!! And that was my first article, you could have just said that you need references and YOU BLOCKED ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just cruel and unfair because I'm fucking trying, so can forgive what I did and just unblock me.

And P.S>. I did not "VANDALIZE" Shia Labeouf's page it was an accident to do and you don't know what vandalism is

Could you guys please put the yellow bar if someone is alive or gray bar if someone is dead in the infobox, because first it is very hard to tell if infobox is an actor, a person, a model or a wrestler. so could you please put that into consideration?

I DO NOT FUCKING DESERVE TO BE BLOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, look you have no right to block me! You are not explaining what I need to do to do better!!!! And I am seriously pissed now that you jerks blocked me after being just unblocked four days before!!! And that was my first article, you could have just said that you need references and YOU BLOCKED ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just cruel and unfair because I'm fucking trying, so can forgive what I did and just unblock me.

I did not "VANDALIZE" Shia Labeouf's page
And P.S>. I did not "VANDALIZE" Shia Labeouf's page it was an accident to do and you don't know what vandalism is

Could you please put the yellow or gray bar back in the infoboxes?
Could you guys please put the yellow bar if someone is alive or gray bar if someone is dead in the infobox, because first it is very hard to tell if infobox is an actor, a person, a model or a wrestler. so could you please put that into consideration?

Joe Rogan
WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DIPSHITS TO TO Joe Rogan's PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are the influences?!! Where are the subjects?!!!!!!!!! What in god's name did you fuckers do to everything I did?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please be more careful
Please be more careful in editing not to remove sources as you did in this edit. Content, particularly that involving personal information about living people, needs to be verifiable. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not everybody is a comedian
Please stop turning all comic actors into comedians in their infoboxes. We go by what they're best known as. Also, please read WP:MOS, for instance we usually write out numbers instead of using the numeral ("three" instead of "3"). Thanks SQGibbon (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced additions
Please stop adding "influences" and "influenced" by people to infoboxes unless that information is mentioned in the article (and properly sourced) or you provide the citation within the infobox. We can't just put in whatever we assume is correct. SQGibbon (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing. Multiple concerns have been raised about your editing practices, but to date you have made no effort at all to enter into discussion about these concerns. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, but please note that this is the third block for similar issues. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz chat spy  09:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A FUCKING 3RD TIME YOU FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
iI HAVE HAD AS MUCH AS I CAN TAKE FROM YOU ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU BLOCKED ME FOR A THIRD TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM SO MOTHERFUCKING PISSED YOU CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR THAT, I AM FILING A LAW SUIT FOR BEING UREASONABLEY BLOCKED FOR 3 FUCKING TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TRY AND TRY AGAIN AND YET YOU STILL BLOCK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW YOU'VE LEFT ME WITH ONLY ONE OPORTUNITY, A LAW SUIT SO KISS MY ASS YOU FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!! I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT YOU FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discussion on ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No legal threats
Legal threats are against the rules, and you must retract it or you will be indefinitely blocked (if you aren't already). There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia, and no basis for such a suit. Regardless, you must retract it or you're done here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.