User talk:CashRules

Some of the sources are bogus. They are being cited for claims that aren't even addressed in the sources. Lots of stuff has been fact tagged for 9 months or so. This article has always been a mess. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right.. and i'm checking on the sources and placing in proper sources. As you can see I'm not reverting anything you do. But if i can find a source I am placing it in and placing the information back in. CashRules (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be surprised if the references from knowgangs.com get deleted. There has been discussion on other gang articles about the validity of them as a reliable source. You're better off using more reliable websites. I did re-write the part about Spain. What was there was a little redundant (liek saying they are transplanted from NYC. We know that from earlier in the article.) I'd like to see this article improve, but it shouldn't be a homage to them either. While we're talking about improving it, I don't really like having seperate sections for each one of their crimes. It would be better to put them into a single section and splitting into paragraphs. I'll leave the article alone for tonight and check on it tomorrow. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well i fixed them. [1]

[2] [3]

• Trinitario ( also a Dominican Gang said to be their biggest rivals ) [4]

[5] [6] hazelton pennsylvania [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinitario&diff=255754648&oldid=255754403

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinitario&diff=149806620&oldid=149806545 CashRules (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the contributions, and sorry for the XLinkBot revert. But could you please have a look at WP:CITE and WP:FOOT (the latter describing a better way of inserting the references than what you do now). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example: diff, it would be nice if you could do that for every single external link. I'll add a references section as well (seems to be missing). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I'm a bit surprised, a 4-time US National Judo Champion and Olympian, and it wasn't here. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on THOMAS CARROLL (Martial Arts) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Queenie 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the CSD tag. Nice start to an article, and I've done some WP:MOS changes. Good luck, and if you need any help, drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CashRules. You have new messages at Giants27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Giants27 (c|s) 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CashRules. You have new messages at Giants27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Giants27 (c|s) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CashRules. You have new messages at Giants27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Giants27 (c|s) 22:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, as you did to the page Talk:Dominican Republic, without explaining why in an edit summary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, copying text directly from an copyrighted article like this without quoting it can be considered a copyright violation. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tip [23] i tried to talk to bilcat about it but he deleted my comment. i reinserted my statement and am trying to be helpful. CashRules (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking on the article's talk page (Talk:Dominican Republic). Posting a short summary in your words with link(s) will not be a copyright violation problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read 3RR carefully, there was an editor who also reverted you prior to the last revert you cited someone else for. His revert would not been seen as 3RR. --Morenooso (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dominican Republic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 05:17, 10 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't been on in a while, but saw that I was blocked. I took a look at the checkuser and was saw that there was no confirmation. It said that I lived in the same geographic area as the person I am accused of being. Another admin " Suomi Finland 2009" said that "The ISP is the second largest provider of internet services in the United States [1]. The Dominican population in the United States is slightly over 1M (year 2000) with 554,638 Dominicans living in the Manhattan borough of New York." I am not this user and am requesting an unblock.

Decline reason:

A couple of points:

Suomi Finland is not an administrator

Even if he was, his comments at the SPI didn't make a whole lot of sense

Your block is based not only on the checkuser data but on a virtual mountain of behavioral evidence

If you wish to appeal this further your best bet would be to email the Arbitration Committee at [email protected] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 12 July 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.

I don't see any mountain of evidence. A checkuser was done to shed some sort of light into the situation because there was no sort of proof available. Can anyone help me with this? CashRules (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:CashRules/steroid, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CashRules/steroid and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CashRules/steroid during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Secret ^account 23:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhadi Ferguson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhadi Ferguson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nswix (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]