Wikipedia editor Jersey92 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
== Welcome! ==
Hello, Valleryking, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Trinity McCray-Fatu, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jersey92 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Trinity McCray-Fatu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jersey92 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Jersey92's talk page.
Hello, I'm Datbubblegumdoe. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kris Jenner, 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. Thank you. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Valleryking. You have new messages at Datbubblegumdoe's talk page. Message added 02:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi there,
I revised you link of reference on the Total Divas page in regard to the return of Summer Rae for season four, and as you may see I have still deleted your work. As for the reference, it never clearly stated she was returning for the fourth season of Total Divas, the article was posted in 2014 and the only link the article made to Total Divas was the promotion for the second half of season three returning. Like I said earlier, there was no clear indication to the return of Rae in season four. Until there has been a legit reference informing viewers of her return, please stop adding her as a main cast member for season four. If you can't find the reference stating her return, I will wait and see the premier of the show next week to see if her return is true or not, until then, things must stay how they are to avoid false advertisement.
Thanks,
MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
No sorry, I will not leave your changed up on the Total Divas page. I cannot find any evidence AT ALL about Summer Rae's return to the fourth season. If what your saying is true, then I will have to see immediate proof, until then, no further changes will be made to the page. Like I said in my last post, I will make the appropriate changes if legit references are posted and/or will have to wait and see the premiere of the fourth season to judge.
Thanks again,
MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok n I will put my change up or I wnt so yea did u see Total Divas First Look That aired yesterday
And I will do it so don't delete it Or lol n she is returning only for da 1st half of season 4 n every thing else n she did announced it on June 30, 2015.
I have googled and youtubed for the clip you're referring to and haven't found anything. I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, I'm simply saying you NEED to provide legit information before making changes, or they're just going to be reverted back to default. This isn't a personal issue with you, it's simple logic and keeping true to the information of this particular TV show. I have searched high and low for information in regards of Summer Rae's return but haven't found anything at all so will have to wait till something comes up or for the premiere. Until then, all information will be kept default and Summer's status will remain as TBD (To Be Determined).
Thanks,
MSMRHurricane (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you explain your recent edits in Real Housewives of Atlanta article? Claudia Jordan has departed the show and there is a source provided. You cannot constantly undo my edits without any explanation. If you revert my edit once again, I will be able to report you, thus you may get blocked. Mymis (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. Like I said, you're not wrong or I'm not right, its just a matter of a reference. Until I see the reference you are speaking of, nothing can be changed without it being unreliable. Thanks, MSMRHurricane (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you telling me you are about to make changes, but I have said over and over, I will not accepted any changes from you or anyone without references. I am aware I am not in charge of the Total Divas article but without proof, the information is invalid. The reference you keep posting doesn't justify Summer's return for Season 4 and you stating that you saw her on the show doesn't justify anything as well. I am not trying to single you out or bully you, if it was anyone else I would keep reverting changes without proof, but please realize your changes won't be accepted without legit, full proof references that states Summer is returning. I have not seen the clip you are talking about and I cannot find it anywhere, so we will have to wait till the premiere of Season 4 and go from there. Thanks, MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously haven't seen what you are talking about with the first look thing since I would not revert your changes. You're not understanding me, I revert your changes because there are no legit references to confirm the news you are trying to put up on the page. When you say you saw it on TV but can't provide solid evidence, it doesn't count. If I saw it, I wouldn't revert your edits, I would keep them since they are backed up with legit references. Please read and understand what I am saying because there is absolutely no need to report each other, I revert your edits because there are NO reference ONLINE that confirm the information you are talking about. I WOULDN'T revert your edits if there was legit information, however. Please understand that. I have said before no edits will stay up on the article without reference, and your WORD and link to that article you've posted before doesn't back up what you're saying, okay? It's as simple as that. And I'm sure if other people who edit the page knew of your information to be true, they would have informed me of it, but no one has, you're the only one who has mentioned this. So please, understand my reasons as to why I am always reverting your changes. Thanks, MSMRHurricane (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your changes, you're just not understanding why I revert them back. I had legit references for the cast of the fourth season of Total Divas, that's why I revert them, while you can only provide a verbal reference that isn't satisfactory enough to make your changes relevant. Plus, I didn't want to name names, I wasn't lying or trying to make you look bad, if I named you as the person to give me the reference it would be fine. Anyway, things are getting out of line here as you cannot simply understand anything I am saying. I am getting tired of explaining to you the very simple reason to why I will not keep your changes, and that is because you are not providing legit proof other than your word. The article needs readable links, references and proof, not just information from what someone has said. It's that simple. I may be seemingly fighting you constantly because you are not understanding anything. Your information isn't valid as there is no proof, just you saying what you saw on TV that supposedly no one else has seen since nothing is posted online. Stop fighting me on this, your word isn't good enough for proof, I'm sorry to say. Every article on Wikipedia needs legit references so people can clearly read the information that has been referred to. We can't go off on what a person simply says. If you can provide a documented clip or information I/we can personally read/watch/view then it will become relevant. Until then, what you say you saw isn't valid. MSMRHurricane (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the site. If someone simply disagrees with you over article content, that is not vandalism by itself. Read WP:NOTVAND.
In fact, what would be easier to construe as vandalism would be repeatedly removing reliably sourced information, as you have done here. This source (which the article currently cites) meets our reliable sourcing guidelines. Unless you have at least as many sources that are at least as reliable specifically countering the claim, there is no reason to remove the information supported by that source. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No my friend, I understand what you're saying; you are claiming you saw Summer Rae on the fourth season first look on E!, but however, you can't provide readable or viewable material to justify your statements, therefore your statements on her return are invalid as you have no proof other than your word. That's what I've been saying to you yet you cannot understand that. I'm tired of going back and forth with this, the facts are simple and I've explained them to you dozens of times that now it's becoming pointless. Provide readable and/or viewable references other than your word for the changes to be made and justifiable. I've said that to you many times. And what you may reply is something that won't help since either you're too stubborn or you seriously cannot comprehend what I've been explaining to you. This is the last message I will be sending you as I've grown tired of getting nowhere with you. This is what you are doing and it is not allowed; read WP:NOR. Have a good day, MSMRHurricane (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't believe you because you can't provide a reliable link, a readable source to justify your information. It's not about being mean, it's about doing the right thing on Wiki. And in the article WP:NOR it clearly states you need references for any information - unless it won't be challenged - a user provides. Read it and understand, what you're doing is in violation of the No Original Research rule, so stop fighting against me, that's the rule and you must follow it. MSMRHurricane (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Total Divas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't specify what kind of help, I can only make assumptions based on the messages on this talk page, and provide a summary of some important site policies and guidelines. Following these will make it easier for you to edit:
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Your recent editing history at Total Divas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You MUST (after your block is completed) provide the exact link to the website from which you got your information from. You can't just say it and expect it to be accepted. No website and your edit will be removed. Is that clear enough for you to understand? Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I would just like to officially announce to you that Summer Rae is not returning as a regular cast member for season 4. I have just watched the premiere and saw the scene you described but throughout the entire episode, it failed to provide what you have been claiming to be true over the past few days. Now hopefully, when your block has expired, you will stop making false changes and adjust your editing methods. Thanks, MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2015 (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).
your reason here I am so sorry for confusing and it won't happen again.I know what I got block for but it was a misunderstanding and I didn't mean to do it.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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).
I do understand why I am block but I am a new contributer on here and I didn't know that I was breaking the rules and I am so sorry that I misunderstood the wikipedia guidelines and It should be reverse because I just joined this site and i so new here. Do you have any concerns and the reason why I was blocked. I was block for not using legit information, false evidence, and arguing on here. What do you want me to do better on Wikipedia. I would love to do thing on here. b
Decline reason:
If there were no sockpuppetry issue I'd be extremely reluctant to unblock this account because you seem to have trouble understanding what other editors tell you, even if it's repeated over and over again. With the technical evidence for sockpuppetry, I'll have to decline this request. Huon (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2015 (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.
It looks like the main reason you were blocked is because you are not a new contributor. The blocking administrator (Bbb23) had evidence that this account was being used by somebody who had already been blocked for misconduct.
It is unlikely that this account will be unblocked; any unblock request would need to come from your main/original account. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This my account Valleryking and I don't know who was using this account but the only person that is using this account is me. I got blocked of the Summer Rae return so I don't know and this is my original account. I have a account on here so I don't no was going on.
No one has no expire date for me yet I had and Bbb23 blocked me so just talk to him or her and see what they say. But if y'all don't want to or unblock me I understand. Bbb23 have evidence for me and that's all
{{unblock|1=}}
Reading your above message, it appears that you understand that we don't want to unblock you and that Bbb23 has evidence that you abused another account while this one was blocked. So I've cancelled your (empty) unblock request above.
No expiry date is set for your block; it's indefinite, lasting until an administrator is willing to unblock you. I will point out that the standard offer says to wait six months before requesting an unblock; if you've been on good behaviour during that time (i.e., no further sockpuppetry), then we'd be willing to consider if you'll be a constructive contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your empty unblock request and revoked talk page access. You've been told what to do. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool[edit]
Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.
Thanks,
Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Datbubblegumdoe. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kris Jenner, 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. Thank you. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
or 
) located above the edit window.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
