Hello, I'm Geraldo Perez. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Lab Rats episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. All info about unaired episodes requires references Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes that haven't aired need a source. Everyone should assume that anything without a source is made up. Ratemonth (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of Lab Rats episodes, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. When you change info about something that has a reference you must also find a new reference to support your changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, per WP:BLANKING, you are not permitted to remove notices regarding an active sanction from your talk page. Tat means that you may not remove the block notice above. If you persist, you may find yourself unable to edit your talk page, and/or your block may be extended. Removing content from your talk page doesn't delete it; it is still available in the page history, so deletion is really pointless. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been increased in length, as you have been evading the block by eiditing without logging in. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:68.205.138.216. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing via anonymous sockpuppets whilst blocked. 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.  Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I won't use my sock accounts anymore Chascharl (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)] (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Fake-accepting your unblock request with an IP address while blocked or sockpuppetry is not going to get you unblocked. Reverting me undoing said fake acceptance is going to get your talk page access revoked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (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 have contacted to user responsible for the block. You understand that if you're caught making another account to vandalise pages, this block will be reinstated? –BuickCenturyDriver 08:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chascharl, it looks as though your block has been extended for block evasion multiple times. What assurance do we have that you will not continue to violate policy? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got vandalism. In some edits I was just trying to put Kickin' It in List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. In another edit I corrected the link to season 2 of Lab Rats. In an edit to List of Pair of Kings episodes I fixed where it said

so it said

Chascharl (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer my question. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't meant as an answer to your question. Use the 2nd chance template and if I don't violate policy than you can be sure I won't violate policy