User talk:Stenvall350

Welcome!

Hello, Stenvall350, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! tomasz. 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Revo entertainment[edit]

A tag has been placed on Revo entertainment requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. tomasz. 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.backstageol.com[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MER-C 09:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:44, 6 October 2011 (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).

Stenvall350 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hersfold, I would never try to spam Wikipedia in any way. I have been a HUGE supporter of the organization since day one. The issue that occurred is that I had noticed the link I had put to quote Apple's response of Steve Jobs death was deleted by other users. When I attempted to replace the link to properly cite it in the edit page I noticed that due to the amount of trafficking and editing that it did not accept my citation. BackstageOL is a legitimate entertainment website, not a blog, that has a partnership agreement with Fox Television. BackstageOL has been able to break several stories including being the first in the United States to report Amy Winehouse's death, the Kings of Leon break-up in Dallas and many many more. Unlike TMZ, RadarOnline and Perez Hilton, BackstageOL does not report on any type of gossip. If there is any way we can discuss the removal of this block I know it would not only be appreciated but a win win situation for both parties. If there is anything that I need to change in how I post please let me know. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Seems to me you've never done a single thing other than link to BackstageOL. This is not acceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:59, 6 October 2011 (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).

Stenvall350 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not realize that is unacceptable and would cause for my account to be blocked. I am only trying to update Wikipedia with factual information. If I need to contribute articles and statements from other outlets as well that would not be a problem. Sorry for creating any type of misunderstanding.

Decline reason:

The warnings you received are clear and specifically stated that you would be blocked if you continued, so the argument that you did not understand that does not hold water. I would suggest you abandon that line of reasoning and answer the questions asked below in any further unblock requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2011 (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 recieved two warnings about this. How did you not realize that these edits would be inappropriate? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received one warning from OhNoItsJamie a month ago. I did not believe he was even a part of the Wikipedia Foundation after I read of allegations of the FBI investigating him for accepting bribes. After my citation was deleted on Steve Job's page I had thought that any user had deleted it in order to post their own. How was I to know that it was Wikipedia administrators. If you would have told me that you did not believe the article was credible enough for Wikipedia then I would have not continued to re-cite the article. Do you understand where I am coming from?[[User:Stenvall350|

First, minor note: no admins are a part of the Wikimedia Foundation--we're all just volunteers, the same as you, with some extra buttons. Second, warnings don't have to come from admins--any editor is empowered to warn any other editor for policy violations, and can request they be blocked if the problems are ongoing and disruptive.

But, more importantly, let's imagine you were unblocked. Since you have basically done only one thing so far on Wikipedia, which is not allowed, what types of editing would you plan to do if you were unblocked? It's hard for us to see how you would productively contributed when all of your edits so far were the same bad behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whiterevo.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whiterevo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]