User talk:Sarcathmo17

August 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 2018 in American television has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: 2018 in American television was changed by Sarcathmo17 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866523 on 2018-08-02T00:33:19+00:00.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at John DiMaggio, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah no, you’re not even citing the reliable source you claim to be using. BTVA lists John DiMaggio as the voice of Dr. Drakken and yet you’re ignoring it. You’re claiming “BTVA or Die” but’s green checkmark is more important to you?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Regarding your edits on Boom Town (Doctor Who), per MOS:TIES we write in the varient of English most relevant to the article (e.g. the article on Donald Trump is in American English, the article on Theresa May is in British English, and the article on Scott Morrison is in Australian English). This is not the "American English Wikipedia", as we don't have an American English Wikipedia, or a British or Australian etc. English Wikipedia, we have an English Wikipedia, we uses all varients of English. Thank you. Ted Edwards  14:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
I’m confused. This is the only account I’ve ever had--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the only account I’ve ever had. Why shouldn’t I be unblocked? I feel like if I use the unblock template again, I won’t be given a fair shot and I’ll be framed for “abusing” the unblock template just because I want to fight hard for my freedom. Like, even the decline reason shows I’m not being given a fair shot because it shows no one is actually willing to talk about this.--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume that had some compelling information that led them to place this block. However, they are a checkuser, and I am not, so I can't see the data in question to make my own judgment. Yes, some of your recent contributions were positive, such as your concerns about a copyright-violating image in the article for the new Kim Possible movie. However, I'd hardly say all of your edits are positive. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * “Hardly all?” Filling in missing citations in articles isn’t positive? Similarly, importing information from other articles to build on the recent years in television, whether they’re premiere dates for shows or even getting the shows listed on List of programs broadcast pages that aren’t on the X year in television page get listed? I think in my 500+ edits you’d be hard-pressed to find even 20 bad ones. Yeah I might make some minor mistakes that I correct, but that happens to all of us. That doesn’t make me an overall bad user or negative contributor.--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I take it no one is actually going to listen…--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)