User talk:200.214.44.134: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:21, 4 April 2008

Removal of picture from Celine Dion

Hi. If you are going to remove that picture from the article, please explain why in detail. Your edits have been reverted for the time being. Thanks.--Urban Rose 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've let it known on WP:AN that you have concerns over that image. You should consider go there and explaining yourself before removing the picture again because I'm still not sure why you're removing the image. Thank you.--Urban Rose 21:42, 3 April 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

SEE BELLOW

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That means that when others disagree with you, you should pause and discuss the disagreement. I looked at your contributions, and couldn't find any edits to Talk:Celine Dion, and your edit summaries are not very clear about what your reasoning was. Also, in general, ignoring warnings will result in a block. Also, edit-warring is always against the rules, even when you are sure that you are right. When your block expires, if you still think that picture should be removed, seek consensus on the talk page instead of just removing it, especially now that you know that some other editors don't agree with you. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

PLZ BLOCK User:Kww AS WELL FOR 3RR AND EDIT-WARRING. THE WARNIGS WERE WRONG. NEVER SAID "FUCK" :'-(

Decline reason:

I don't get the feeling that this editor will cease to do what they were blocked for. — Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:14, 3 April 2008 (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.

User:Kww SAID:

"Edit summaries that consist of the word "FUCK" repeated twenty times are never good faith"[1]

IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "FUCK" AND Wikipedia:FUC, REFRAIN FROM EDITING IMAGES!

Rationale for including image

See Wikipedia:Fair use review for an explanation of why the image is included in the article.--Urban Rose 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTHING FOUND :'-(

I'm not an expert on the subject. You may consider, reading a recent thread on WP:AN about what happened. And by the way, I think that what User:Kww did was inappropriate, but you need to change your tone. Calling others "a joke" and using all caps is not appropriate either and will cause people not to take you seriously.--Urban Rose 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Notice that you aren't blocked for saying "fuck"- you're blocked for edit-warring. Kww was warned and didn't revert after the warning; blocking him now, when he isn't going to revert any more, would be pointless. You were blocked to get you to stop reverting, he stopped reverting when he was asked to. Blocks aren't a punishment; we block to prevent inappropriate edits from continuing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd just let it go and come back after the block expires. Kww jumped the gun and I warned him. And also, "all caps" isn't helping the situation. --Urban Rose 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plz

{{unblock|Plz unblock. Wanto to put {{advertisement}} at Ian Stephens. Thank you.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Sounds reasonable to me

Request handled by: Judge Will Guthrie (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
 |}
+Thank you.