User talk:AidepikiwIV

March 2024

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to B. J. Britt; it is considered vandalism. Please see the image use policy for appropriate use of images in Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inappropriate it is a truthful and useful contribution to B. J. Britt's Wikipedia page. Stop removing my contributions. AidepikiwIV (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate images, as you did at B. J. Britt, you may be blocked from editing. Unencyclopedic images may be added to the bad image list to prevent them from being displayed. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing anything here besides positively contributing to an actor's Wikipedia page and you are harrassing me about it and lying about it. AidepikiwIV (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any sort of money or profiting in any way from adding this image. Only adding it to a page for informational purposes in a page that is not my own. It is NOT a violation of copyright. AidepikiwIV (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly press photos associated with Getty Images and Alamy, which may mean copyright infringement. I am not harassing you, you seem to take it very seriously. You seem to continue adding back the image, which may violate WP:3RR by continuing to add it back after 3 times. I reported you because you have continued this and have not stopped. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has no relevance. I am not claiming any ownership of the image I am adding it to a publicly available article centered completely around an actor and his life and career. I think adding an image of the person the entire article is based around is not as bad as you think it is. AidepikiwIV (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AidepikiwIV: Normally I would not have blocked regarding the inappropriate edits at B. J. Britt. Instead, I would have left a message here warning about WP:EW and strongly encouraging you to desist. However, edit warring at ANI (1 + 2) is too much. Please be sure to not repeat contested edits in the future. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolute lunacy. You are blocking me for contributing to an article instead of blocking the person who is actively lying and harassing me for doing nothing wrong. AidepikiwIV (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think Wikipedia would work if people were free to repeatedly revert other editors with no consequences? Everyone has to stop reverting and start discussing the underlying issue. Most importantly, contributors need to try to understand what others are saying and to ask questions rather than repeat an earlier point. Please read the WP:EW (edit warring) link in my above comments. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you completely misinterpreted what actually happened. TheGreatestLuvofAll reverted MY edit and I rightfully added it back and he's the one getting off with no consequences. But because he's the one who reported me like a lying coward he gets no disciplinary action. Very hypocritical of you AidepikiwIV (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]