User talk:Hclaricejohnson

Welcome!

Hello, Hclaricejohnson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maddie Ziegler

The article Maddie Ziegler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of person questioned. How is it that Abby Lee Miller's page can be consistently denied, but this page is okay?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. AlexB531 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maddie Ziegler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maddie Ziegler 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/Maddie Ziegler until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maddie Ziegler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maddie Ziegler 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/Maddie Ziegler (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ziegler

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding the IB and whether to have one or not. Stop edit warring and go to the talk page to discuss. If you continue to edit war based on nothing but your personal preference, there are ramifications which are best avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have continued to edit war on this, this is formal notification that you are currently at WP:3RR (you should read that page very carefully). If you revert again you will be reported. You are strongly advised to use the article talk page to discuss the matter, not edit war to force your preferred version onto the page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

As you have seen fit to ignore the requests of others to use the talk page to discuss and come to a collegiate conclusion, and now reverted five times on this matter, you have been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hclaricejohnson reported by User:SchroCat. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Ziegler

Hi, please don't add an infobox to that article again without consensus. You seem to have violated our 3RR rule, which says editors may not revert more than three times in 24 hours. If you add it again without consensus, whether now or later, you're likely to be blocked. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:13, 31 May 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure why I was blocked? I don't think I've edited anything major on Wikipedia in quite a while.

Decline reason:

I see below that you are claiming your account was compromised. Please see WP:COMPROMISED. We generally do not unblock compromised accounts. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:26, 26 January 2017 (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.

You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Who is Emmahalliwell (talk · contribs)? —DoRD (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Probably another student that used this computer.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only - multiple requests are not required. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:25, 26 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

My IP address was blocked almost a year ago and had not been unblocked. I believe it was blocked due to another student using this computer. Is there any way of finding out when my account will be unblocked? Hclaricejohnson (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your account, not your IP address, was blocked. It will not be unblocked until you provide a satisfactory explanation for your abuse of multiple accounts (see WP:SOCK). Yamla (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2017 (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.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Higher Ground title card.png

Thank you for uploading File:Higher Ground title card.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]