User talk:Lg16spears

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Blocked for copyright violations[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 12:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

As an editor of 18k edits and over ten years, you really should know better than to dump an IMDB plot summary into Wikipedia verbatim (see Baywatch: White Thunder at Glacier Bay). I am also deeply concerned about your non-communication with other editors, as borne out by the parlous state of this page. MER-C 12:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reason given to consider an unblock. Yamla (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))
... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message


Decline reason: No reason given. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))
... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message


Decline reason: No reason given, and I would suggest that you do not place another unblock request without reasoning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I'm sorry, i've no right about copyrights from IMDB. I should know better about. All i'm asking is when will i'll editing again and when will the block expire? Lg16spears (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nothing in this or your other responses indicates that you have any understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policy, or that you have even read it. In order to be unblocked, you need to explain your understanding of how copyright works on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's licences, what constitutes copyrighted material, and why we cannot use it here. Until you do this, you will not be unblocked. If you persist in posting inappropriate unblock appeals, your ability to edit this page will be removed. Yunshui  10:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

{unblock | reason=All i'm asking is just give me a another chance, please remove the block on my page. I swear this will never happen again. Lg16spears (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)}

I have deliberately not set an expiry time -- you'll be unblocked if and when you show that you understand the reasons for the block (which you haven't, yet) and commit to making an effort to change. The unblock request immediately above this comment is not going to cut it. MER-C 02:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I do have an uderstanding and very commit on the change. Can i please have the unblocked now, I promise it not gonna happen again. Lg16spears (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

{unblock|reason=I got block from Wikipedia for violations of copyrights, MER-C, could you please unblock me? Lg16spears (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)}

  • Please don't keep posting new unblock requests - only one is needed, and an admin will review it in due course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you! But i still want to know when i'll be unblock? Lg16spears (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Yesterday, my account was block for violated copyrights on the website against their policy, I read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and i now understand about it, and i do have an understanding on the website's copyright policy and now I know about it. I'm sorry for getting block and this will never happen in the future. Lg16spears (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Great, but you have to convince us you understand our policies. Can you please explain why your earlier edits were inappropriate, and how your future edits would be significantly different? Can you also explain why you ignored warnings for more than four years? Yamla (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was reckless, i didn't follow the procedure, i ignored all of the warnings from the website, and it was inappropriate of me that i'm block from Wikipedia. I made an mistake and i apologize to Wikipedia and the editors, I do now understand your policies, my actions about what I edited, what I can't edited and i'll regret about it. Lg16spears (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See below The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I did violated more than four years on Wikipedia for copyright violations, now I know that what I put and what I can't put while edited. It's my mistake that i can lived for the rest of my life, with or without my account. I'm very sorry for everything i did and what i'm asking is a chance to fix this mess that i made. Lg16spears (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See below The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Last week, I got blocked and been blocked since last week for violated the copyrights of Wikipedia. I readed the policy over and over and over again just to say, I ignored everyone, I convinced all of you understand for the policies that I do. I know all of the procedure now and I did my time, all I'm asking is a requested to be unblock, please just give me a another chance, I'll change, I'll never do this again. Lg16spears (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Despite several messages telling you that you need to explain what you understand to have been the problem with your editing, you have still not done so. Experience over the years shows that if an editor merely says "I understand now" without explaining what he or she understands, then more often than not he or she does not actually understand, and is therefore likely to continue in the same way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Calm down Lg16spears, one unblock request at a time, please. Once your current request is read, the admins will decide what to do. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Kailash29792, I just a nervous wreck being block and not getting back into editing after seeing everyone's account getting block.Lg16spears (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Note: You have been told not to have multiple unblock requests open at the same time, and you even said "OK" in answer, so you are clearly aware of the message, and yet you have totally ignored it, and done the same again. Posting multiple unblock requests does not cause your request to be dealt with quicker, or make it any more likely that you will be unblocked. All it does is waste the time of the reviewing administrator, who has to close all of the requests, instead of just one. Likewise, as I have already said above, you have posted new unblock requests which ignore repeated requests to explain what you understand to be the reason for the block. Posting new unblock requests which do nothing to address issues raised concerning earlier ones, and which therefore have no chance at all of being accepted, again wastes administrators' time. Normally when I have declined an unblock request I leave that talk page and don't come back to it, but if for any reason I do come back here and see that you have yet again posted one or more unblock requests which totally ignore what you have already been told, I shall remove talk page access to avoid further waste of administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that, I've been waiting patiently to be unblocked, I've say sorry many times and now know that learn my lesson. Lg16spears (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been waiting to be unblock for weeks now and I've read the policy of Wikipedia. I know what did because I didn't follow the rules, i didn't follow the procedure and I ignored all of the violations of copyrighting and it's policy. I'm sorry that I'm block, this never happen again, I'm asking for a another chance and I'm requesting to be unblock of my account. MER-C, can I please be unblock so i can edited again, I promise you and everyone this is my mistake and it will never happen again. Lg16spears (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You need to make another appeal -- I'm still not convinced. You certainly haven't addressed all of my concerns. In particular, you haven't stated what you learned by reading the copyright policy and what you will (and won't) do in response. You have not addressed your lack of communication at all. I'd say you have one more shot at it before your ability to make further appeals gets revoked, so I suggest you read the above conversations and compose your appeal very carefully. MER-C 00:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It may make it easier to compose your unblock request if you have a little guidance, so you might find it helpful to answer the following questions as evidence of your understanding:

  1. What licence is Wikipedia's content released under?
  2. What does this mean for people who want to reuse Wikipedia's content?
  3. How can you tell if text from somewhere else is released under this licence?
  4. Why is it a problem if you use text that has been released somewhere else under a different licence?
  5. When can text that has been released somewhere else be used on Wikipedia?
  6. When can images that have been released somewhere else be used on Wikipedia?

The answers can all be found at WP:COPYVIO and its related pages. Yunshui  14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yunshui I tired to get one, and nobody won't get my block out of my account. Lg16spears (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I been block by Wikipedia since last year of copyrighting from a another source to created a page. If was a stress and rough month for me, I have look at the WP:COPYVIO before I can requested an Unblock. So, here's what I've learned from it. #What licence is Wikipedia's content released under? ##Wikipedia has no licence with any other site, news site and other sites. #What does this mean for people who want to reuse Wikipedia's content? ##They have to relook on the website for what can put i and what they can't put in. #How can you tell if text from somewhere else is released under this licence? ##If it's from IMDB, I can't coping it, I have to use my own words. #Why is it a problem if you use text that has been released somewhere else under a different licence? ##I can't use a text from a licence because it's belongs to that source. #When can text that has been released somewhere else be used on Wikipedia? ##It has to be somewhere if Wikipedia can use for a page. #When can images that have been released somewhere else be used on Wikipedia? ##The images can be use could be coming from a website or source, is it a social media, magazine, etc. What can I trying to say is that I made a hugh mistake on what I can't put down on Wikipedia. I don't own the copyright, it belongs to other website. I learn my lesson and I'm hoping if everyone forgive of my mistakes from the past years? I'll have just a another chance to come back at editing something for that's not copyrights. MER-C, if you look in to your heart, I'm sorry on all of this, we can have a understanding and have the appeal so that I can get back at editing. Please, lift my block, in the future, I can think twice on what's copyrighting and what's not copyrighting.Lg16spears (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Well, you got one thing right in Number 3 right at least - but didn't answer the question that was asked. I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean in your other answers. I feel that you may have difficulties with using English - perhaps you should try editing on the Wikipedia that is in your native language. I would advise you that they will have a copyright policy very similar to ours, but you may find it easier to understand. I suggest that you look at that before you try another request here. I am not taking your talk page access away, but you must make this effort to understand properly, or the next administrator may very well take it away. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Peridon, I'm american and do speak and write in English, man. Lg16spears (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, but I have concerns about understanding what you wrote above. I see a lot of non-native writers of English here, and that's what it looked like to me. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote -- "You need to make another appeal... You certainly haven't addressed all of my concerns. You have not addressed your lack of communication at all." Grovelling will get you nowhere; I am not impressed or persuaded by it. I'm going to defer to the judgment of an uninvolved administrator -- which means you need to make another unblock request. MER-C 05:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If i hadn't already responded to an earlier unblock request I would decline this. The answers you've given serve to convince me that not only haven't you understood the site's copyright policy, it seems highly unlikely that you've even read it. I would also suggest that any reviewing admin considers removing talkpage access as well; this talkpage has turned into a colossal waste of time. Yunshui  09:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. MER-C 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

In the past, I've violated copyright rules multiple times which got me got block for not listed, not paying any attention and a lack of communication on Wikipedia for not following orders, I was making my own set of editing. I don't own any of the rights from any of the sources from either IMDB, Entertainment websites, Gaming websites and others, it's their own copyrights, it's what they have on their site and it's belongs to them, 100%. They can put on what can say of site, it's their text, their words and their license, it's not mine rights, all of their rights are theirs. IMDB is just an online database of information just like Wikipedia which is just a free online encyclopedia for editing pages and articles. I didn't listen to any of the other accounts or the owners of Wikipedia, I don't own this site, I just go the site on editing what can I put from the source of what website in my own words and text. It's very difficult for me that I have no communication on any of the website's policy and I did ignored all of the warning from Wikipedia, it was very inappropriate. I want to understand about the policy before what I can edited, it's an understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policy to me. So, please, give me a another chance so that I can finally return to the site again. Lg16spears (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see nothing in this latest appeal that demonstrates to me that you understand, and will apply, Wikipedia's copyright policy. This is your 10th appeal and no tangible progress is being made so I am withdrawing your talk page access. Any further appeals must be made to WP:UTRS. I would advise that, in any UTRS appeal, you show that you have a sound grasp of copyright policy or access there will be withdrawn, also. Just Chilling (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17610 was submitted on Feb 25, 2017 03:28:09. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17613 was submitted on Feb 26, 2017 19:32:26. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17634 was submitted on Feb 28, 2017 02:42:09. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that you didn't do everything wrong, you deserve a second chance at getting your account back. If nobody can't do nothing about getting you back in, you need to stand up against those users who blocked you. 67.84.178.88 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #19408 was submitted on Oct 04, 2017 04:58:16. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Lg16spears (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #19545 was submitted on Oct 20, 2017 01:43:23. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Note that due to repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appeals via UTRS and a continued failure to understand why they were blocked and, in the latest declined request, making the false claim that they were blocked because they were hacked, I have blocked Lg16spears from making further UTRS appeals for 6 months. The standard offer applies.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films based on works by Gardner Fox[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Films based on works by Gardner Fox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz Read! Talk! 13:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Crossover science fiction television series has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Crossover science fiction television series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ghost Rider films has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Ghost Rider films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)