User talk:Earth11bale

Hi
Hi. All. New. Earth11bale (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Natalie Morales, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Natalie Morales. 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. Thank you. ''There are independent sources which clearly say Natalie started in 2006. Do not readd 2003 without first providing a source to the contrary.'' Tabercil (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Unblock Me
Please Unblock Me. I stuck the reference Earth11bale (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)in wrong and did not mean to cause any vandalism.

I know I am right. I keep giving you reliable source, but No one will listen to me or even read it. Earth11bale (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said here: "The dates given for Matt and Natalie in the articles in question are when they started in their current role, not when they started period. I suggest you spend the week you're blocked to do some reading about what Wikipedia is and how it goes about doing things. Start here and read through it, especially the articles linked from that page." Tabercil (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I get what your are saying. I gave a source on GMA and they did it was unsourceful. Are freaking kidding Me. i don't think that idiot even read it.Earth11bale (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to the source you used here. It's not that good of a source. It's better if you can peg it to a newspaper or something which has a editorial board to it. For instance, http://www.mercurynews.com/tv/ci_16849638?source=rss&nclick_check=1 might be better... (e.g., see here). Tabercil (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)