Welcome!

Hello, Texasmade2010, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — ξ^xplicit 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to get at me on my talk page. I have made many great contributions to Wikipedia and I will continue to.Texasmade2010 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to start reading some of the pages above about The five pillars of Wikipedia and the page I gave you about citing reliable sources. Please, read them. I find that I've had to look through your contributions to correct many edits that seem to go against these policies and guidelines. I feel really guilty doing it, because I do not want to place anyone under a microscope. But you've left me no choice. Some of your contributions to the encyclopedia have been great. But you need to be careful about the sources that you use. In particular, blogs, messageboards and other personal websites are not supposed to be used as sources. And again, please review your use of periods/full stops and commas.

I'm telling you all this because if you continue, your actions will get you into trouble. You show complete lack of interest in improving your behaviour, and always delete people's comment without a second thought. If you need help, please ask. I'm giving you a lot of warning, not because I love to talk. but because I'm trying to prevent the inevitable. Orane (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Orane (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After all my talk to you about sources, you went back and added blogs to the articles. I told you that if you did not understand, you were supposed to come to me.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Orane (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps being removed because all your put is already included in the charts section!!!! Only include prose when it talks about something different from the tables. Candyo32 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Texasmade2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

76.0.72.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Block evasion: Disruptive editing: back to violations of NPOV and citing sources

• Blocking administrator: Journalist (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: For your continued block evasion with your newly created sockpuppet JohnnyCalifornia4Life (talk · contribs), I'm declining your unblock request (which doesn't address the reason why you were blocked) and have extended your block indefinitely. — ξ^xplicit 08:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look man I really don't know what your talking about I've been on my account the entire time waiting for your answer. I don't know who that Johnny kid is and I don't care. Im not trying to avoid blockage and I haven't made any new accounts I live with 3 people so maybe they made one with the same IP address but thats about all I can think of. Im upset with Ushers article while I admit it had some poor writing and sources not all that was my fault like the Journalist thinks and someone removed Ushers career album sales. What the hell? Thats maybe the most important piece of information to an artists article. Not to mention they removed him being the named the most successful singer of the decade and the second most successful artist of the decade. When both had reliable sources from billboard.com. That is vandalism. It looks like some people are hating on his achievements instead of caring about the quality of the article. Please reconsider unblocking me. Thank You-Texasmade2010 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, very likely story. Funny how JohnnyCalifornia4Life's first edit was to remove the sockpuppet tag from your userpage. Your edits were riddled with unreliable sources like Blogspots and were hopelessly biased. Journalist tried communicating with you by engaging in discussion with you here on your talk page and on the talk page of Usher (entertainer), but you ignored most attempts in discussion, or worse, replied without resolving any issue and went on to make the exact same problematic edits. Then, after being blocked, you brought back an old account you previously made, Tony254trill (talk · contribs), to make your exact same edits to the Usher article, in violation of both the block evasion and sockpuppetry policies. Luckily, we got your other alternate account, Trill254Texas (talk · contribs), blocked before you could take any action, only for you to create JohnnyCalifornia4Life as noted above. What you should have done was avoid editing the article and work on resolving the concerns raised by Journalist; alas, your chance is gone, and you are blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. I'll allow another admin to review your unblock request below. — ξ^xplicit 08:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright look I didn't say Tony254Trill wasn't me. What I said was I didn't make any new accounts. Like you said I made that one before and please be understanding. I am still new to Wikipedia so I did not know what sock puppetry or avoiding blockage was. Yes I should have read about all that but I didn't and I used a blog maybe a few times but that was it. Most of my sources were reliable. It's funny that you didn't mention how it is vandalism that Usher career album sales, being named the most successful singer of the decade, and the second most successful artist were removed. DESPITE reliable sources. (Except for the career album sales I have a reliable source for that now so yeah) Also for the last time I do not know a Johnny maybe it was one of my home boys but I doubt since it said California in the screen name. Were all from Texas. You should take that shit up with Johnny on his talk page not me.Texasmade2010 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2010 (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).

Texasmade2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Look I apologize for any vandalism I did but please I also made good contributions to Wikipedia as well and I've learned my lesson. If unblocked you can keep me on a short leash. All Im asking for is one more chance Texasmade2010 (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is disruptive sockpuppetry.  Sandstein  11:33, 8 May 2010 (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).

Texasmade2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Look I apologize for any vandalism I did but please I also made good contributions to Wikipedia as well and I've learned my lesson. If unblocked you can keep me on a short leash. All Im asking for is one more chance

Decline reason:

One open unblock at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (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.