User talk:Dknight192

Welcome

Hello, Dknight192, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page List of Disney Channel series have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! NrDg 05:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Disney Channel series. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NrDg 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Demi Lovato. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NrDg 01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Disney Channel series. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NrDg 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Disney Channel series. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. the link did not support what you added NrDg 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to List of Disney Channel series, you will be blocked from editing. There is nothing anywhere that supports what you added. Read the linked to article. NrDg 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY

Dont delete it PLEASE there is evidence of Camp Rock 2 Just click on the link THANKYOU!!!!!

What's with all this deletion talk? Why not just spend more time creating information? Information is good. Deleting it unnecessarily isn't good.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt delete it I keep making valuable contributions and a radnom user keeps deleting my stuff, and its really annoying when they are true contributions with evidence.

I believe you, I was talking to the other guy who's flagged your account etc.

I have read about "deletionists". If they spent as much time actually creating content, as they did deleting other's contributions, Wiki would be awesome. Sorry to hear you're getting harrassed, and good luck buddy.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the references before I removed the listings the first time. The main reference from the "Hollywood Reporter" said "The network hopes to go into production on a sequel in late spring or summer 2009, pending a script that's in development as well as the cast members' busy schedules." Notice the key words "hopes" "pending a script" "busy schedules". This is not a confirmation that this will really happen. Taking it as such is crystal ball speculation about the future. What I see is they would like to do it but it depends on a lot of things. There is no set schedule, no set casting and no script. Wait for something more solid. --NrDg 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The fact that it was mentioned as a possible show in a neutral press article is enough to warrant inclusion IMHO. I'm just against deleting unecessarily. If in doubt, keep.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I completley agree there is enough evidence for it to be in a section entitled To Be Announced which is perfect, howver, he still deletes it!

Find a reference that it is in production. Add that reference and additional info to the sequel section of Camp Rock. That would support addition to the lists. I need to see something that shows this is real and is actually going to happen. The current references don't do that. If it is in production there will be a planned release timeframe. --NrDg 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregory Clegg for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe that because I agreed with you they think we the same person? --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Confused, Whats sockpuupetry. All we did was tell some dude we thought that him deleting my article was wrong!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknight192 (talk • contribs) 21:18, May 14, 2009

Sockpuppetry is the act of abusively using multiple accounts. Honestly, I don't think you're a sock. Your edits are consistent with a newbie, with no significant contribution overlap with User:Gregory Clegg and his socks.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Thankyou and yeah I'm sorry if I've upset anyone or anything

I concur. I strongly doubt that you are an abusive sockpuppet. You are making good contributions to the project in general, our discussions are just disagreements about what belongs and what we need for support. --NrDg 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, someone has just taken something way out of proportion and I dont know why? Dknight192 (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just got caught in the cross fire. A blatant sockpuppet was editing in your support which cast suspicion on you as this was part of his pattern of behavior. This is unfortunate but these things do happen. Usually it sorts itself out. Please don't let this discourage you. Even though we have had our disagreements, I strongly support your efforts to add to and improve the project. --NrDg 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add, just for your amusement, I was also accused of being a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard/Archive for details. --NrDg 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thats ridiculous, its obvious your not a sockpuppet and nor am I. Thankyou so much for the help, I'm new to Wikipedia so I was quite unsure about all this stuff, so thanks again. Dknight192 (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The best advise I have, in general, is to try to do what is right but to not take things that happen here too seriously. We are all a bunch of volunteers that are doing the best we can. There are a lot bad actors who enjoy disrupting the project so we tend to sometimes over react when we see certain patterns of behavior. We are directed to assume good faith but this is sometimes hard to do and mistakes get made. Interacting with others when you don't understand things is the best thing you can do to learn. --NrDg 05:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Dknight, for adding you to the sockpuppetry case. Like NrDg said above, I overreacted and thought you were a sock. But after taking a closer look at your contributions, I've seen that you are a legitimate new user. Sorry again for my assumption of bad faith. If you need any help with anything, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]