May 2016

edit

  Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jim Morrison, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see WP:IRS for how to identify reliable sources that are suitable for this. - CorbieV 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

CorbieVreccan. I did provide a reliable source on Mary Werbelow. It was not discussed prior altho it was just deleted by you and I undid: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Morrison&diff=next&oldid=721009584

It is fact that she was a serious girlfriend and a simple search of Mary Werbelow and Jim Morrision will show this information exists in over 8 books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HjPcWkEPSR8C&pg=PT194&dq=jim+morrison+mary+werbelow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAqZWQ8ufMAhWGHT4KHfeEDhsQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=jim%20morrison%20mary%20werbelow&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4cuVn1VUBMEC&pg=PT106&dq=jim+morrison+mary+werbelow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAqZWQ8ufMAhWGHT4KHfeEDhsQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=jim%20morrison%20mary%20werbelow&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4cuVn1VUBMEC&pg=PT106&dq=mary+werbelow+jim+morrison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7wp-28ufMAhUCET4KHd6mCiAQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=mary%20werbelow%20jim%20morrison&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=XtxLBAAAQBAJ&pg=PP14&dq=mary+werbelow+jim+morrison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7wp-28ufMAhUCET4KHd6mCiAQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=mary%20werbelow%20jim%20morrison&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_oRdvoEOoXMC&pg=PA34&dq=jim+morrison+mary+werbelow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAqZWQ8ufMAhWGHT4KHfeEDhsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=jim%20morrison%20mary%20werbelow&f=false

https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/  Poofdragon (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply


  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jim Morrison, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Bare urls to fanzines are insufficient. - CorbieV 22:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Jim Morrison. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Take. It. To. The. Talk. Page. And seek consensus. Stop edit warring. - CorbieV 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-Warrior at Jim Morrison regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

edit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Poofdragon reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: ). Thank you. - CorbieV 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

CorbieVreccan. I did provide a reliable source on Mary Werbelow. It was not discussed prior altho it was just deleted by you and I undid: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Morrison&diff=next&oldid=721009584

It is fact that she was a serious girlfriend and a simple search of Mary Werbelow and Jim Morrision will show this information exists in over 8 books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HjPcWkEPSR8C&pg=PT194&dq=jim+morrison+mary+werbelow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAqZWQ8ufMAhWGHT4KHfeEDhsQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=jim%20morrison%20mary%20werbelow&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4cuVn1VUBMEC&pg=PT106&dq=jim+morrison+mary+werbelow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAqZWQ8ufMAhWGHT4KHfeEDhsQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=jim%20morrison%20mary%20werbelow&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4cuVn1VUBMEC&pg=PT106&dq=mary+werbelow+jim+morrison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7wp-28ufMAhUCET4KHd6mCiAQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=mary%20werbelow%20jim%20morrison&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=XtxLBAAAQBAJ&pg=PP14&dq=mary+werbelow+jim+morrison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7wp-28ufMAhUCET4KHd6mCiAQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=mary%20werbelow%20jim%20morrison&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_oRdvoEOoXMC&pg=PA34&dq=jim+morrison+mary+werbelow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAqZWQ8ufMAhWGHT4KHfeEDhsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=jim%20morrison%20mary%20werbelow&f=false

https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/

Poofdragon (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 20 May

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

{PoofDragon|reason= I don't have multiple accounts. This is my only active account and I am hardly active here. Why is my account blocked? Someone reverted all my sourced edits. Poofdragon (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)}.Reply

June 2018

edit
 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Poofdragon (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is my only account. What is the real issue? Poofdragon (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

  Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Poofdragon (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is my only account and this is it. Your confirmation is incorrect. How do I prove this? Can I appeal this further? Poofdragon

Decline reason:

Obvious sock is obvious, even without two checkuser confirmations (now three). Revoking talk page access. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If not you, who is Paltryforhire (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ask them. Again, this is my only account. What did I do wrong? How do I appeal this? Poofdragon (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply