User talk:Frontman830

June 2021

Cease your nonconstructive editing on my talk page. If you have something to contribute, make it in the interest of the wikipedia community. Not your own personal agenda. Regards, CK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitolKing (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Indus Valley Civilization have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. IVC is not exclusively in India; in fact, it is mostly in Pakistan. If any country has a right to lay claim for the article to be written in its variety of English, it would obviously be Pakistan.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Paul Ritter (actor).jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Paul Ritter (actor).jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 "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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getty images are generally not acceptable as non-free content due to not meeting WP:NFCC#2. Whpq (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Copyright Act has been accepted

Digital Copyright Act, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usual notice

Hi Frontman830, per your protection request at WP:RFPP, you are obviously already aware of this. I'm still required to formally notify you with the blue notice below, just to make sure that everyone working in this area has received it.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Feel free to remove this message after reading.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:SwissArmyGuy per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwissArmyGuy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2021 (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).

Frontman830 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not specifically evade blocks both banned users Banana19208 and SwissArmyGuy, but if it's very impossible for global bans by the Wikimedia Foundation. Frontman830 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were evading blocks just today: User talk:2001:4452:458:800:7857:FDF0:1769:7FCC. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:34, 8 July 2021 (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).

Frontman830 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not understand why if I am blocked as a sockpuppet of two main accounts, otherwise just hang over it and make it for choice, and no global bans by WMF for legal reasons. Frontman830 (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is entirely incoherent. Yamla (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2021 (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).

Frontman830 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Before if you read this message, I just want to explain for something. My first account, Banana19208 has been sanctioned, and then blocked for vandalism. Secondly, SwissArmyGuy was blocked for trolling for email for private personality, that breaches WP:OVERSIGHT. But sockpuppet do not exists on Wikipedia before 2004, I've been shocked... But then recently I was changing the username, adding images of European royalty and for other reasons why if I discussed at the WP:AN/I for editing problems (including talk pages), but I'm not a lock-evading user, and uncertainly, WMF-globally banned user, I'm just only an ordinary Wikipedian with special needs. Frontman830 (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're evading the block of a user that's been banned by ArbCom. You just admitted as welL "My first account, Banana19208 has been sanctioned, and then blocked for vandalism." That account was tied to SwissArmyGuy, which is a BANNED account. We are done here. Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (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.

RickinBaltimore, they're still at it, with their IP. If they'd learn better English, they'd avoid scrutiny a lot more easily. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user has been evading this block over a wide range of IPv6 addresses. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aegukka.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aegukka.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Digital Copyright Act

The article Digital Copyright Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing came of this bill. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Digital Copyright Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digital Copyright Act 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/Digital Copyright Act 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.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The 39 Steps (quad poster).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The 39 Steps (quad poster).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]