User talk:Callump90

Hi. I've announced that we'll unveiled the real-life MI5 agent James Bond. The character was created by Ian Fleming and he writes his novel. then the first James Bond movie was release over 50 years ago. The home-made company called dwho1995 pictures said 'we today announced that we going to create a real James Bond by March 2013'. I will report this later on but in the meantime. Happy Halloween. Callump90. Oct 31, 2012

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James Bond in film‎. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SchroCat (^ • @) 12:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Walt Disney Pictures for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. McDoobAU93 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Red Dwarf XI

Please don't add nonsense to Wikipedia. Red Dwarf has not been bought by Disney. Disney's Red Dwarf: The Movie and Red Dwarf XI have been deleted as hoaxes. If you continue to add hoaxes you might end up blocked, and we wouldn't want that. Morwen - Talk 12:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I see you created another hoax article Bond 24 (2014), again Disney-related. Please do not add hoax material to Wikipedia again. If you do I will block you. If you have a reliable source (so, therefore, not, for example, your youtube channel) that Disney have bought Red Dwarf or James Bond or MGM or whatever, then please cite it. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 16:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello once more. Since you disregarded this warning and created another hoax: The World is Not Enough 3D, I have had, with regret, had to block you, as per my warning above. Morwen - Talk 19:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disney will distribute Red Dwarf.

Check out on my YouTube channel that I've had announced.

You can play pretend somewhere else. Wikipedia is not the place for your fantasies. Freshh (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you continue adding unnecessary, inappropriate, and false information on talk pages and articles, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Freshh (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Don't block me. Callump90 (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2012 (GMT)

Then don't add stuff like this, or this, or this. You know the information you add isn't true, so don't do that anymore. Freshh (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, let's make this very simple. You cannot post any sort of wishful thinking (that Disney will distribute films based on Red Dwarf or the James Bond film series) anywhere on Wikipedia. If you have reliable proof that Disney will distribute these films, such as a newspaper article, website article, etc. that clearly states this, then you MUST include that proof with such an edit. Reliable sources do not include personal YouTube channels, any information you yourself wrote, fan forums, fan websites and the like. If you are not sure if a source would be considered reliable, post your source on the talk page of the article you wish to change before you make the change and let other editors help you. For what it's worth, pleading to not be blocked doesn't mean anything anymore after you pleaded to be unblocked, an admin granted your request and then you started doing just what got you blocked for. That means we can't trust you to honor your word. You've got a lot of work to do to restore that trust, and I wish you luck in doing so. --McDoobAU93 18:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

LAST WARNING

If you continue doing the same things that you did here, you will be blocked from editing without further notice without the option of pleading guilty.

Add legitimate information and we won't have to block you again. Freshh (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for adding hoax information to articles. You promised to stop this when your last block was lifted but haven't so you've been re-blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock me again

Please unblock me again at midday this afternoon and I won't do it again. Thanks. Callump90 (talk) 19 November 2012.

You haven't followed the correct unblock process. Plus that's what you said last time, it was part of your unblock conditions and you didn't stick to them. Why should we believe that this time is any different?--5 albert square (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And because of that your block has now changed to indefinite--5 albert square (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock me once more

you fucking basterds. Unblock me and won't do it again Callump90 (talk)

Unblock me

After more then 4 months. Unblock me and I will not turn into Sockpuppetry again. Callump90 (talk)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)