Hello, Barneystimpleton, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring on Victoria Justice, and please be aware of the three revert rule. You were initially trying to replace the lead image with a different image which lacked suitable copyright information; these edits were reverted as Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and so images of uncertain copyright status/provenance cannot be used. You are now removing the lead image for no apparent reason at all; edit warring is really not acceptable, and, if you continue, you may be blocked from editing. You are welcome to make your case on the article's talk page if you feel that the article would be better off with no image at all. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the image you keep using has been released under a free license. This is your last warning- please stop edit warring over this issue. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Matt Bennett, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of significant coverage from reliable source. Also no evidence of major roles; according to IMDB appearance in Victorious was only for one episode.
Hello, could you reply to my comments here, thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of edits you are making are not going to fly. You need to discuss these things before reverting over and over. Beach drifter (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. MTV is a proper source for the Justin Bieber article. Candyo32 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MTV is not a reliable source for such a thing. Barneystimpleton (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you may not have had a chance to read many of wikipedias guidelines yet, but a few a very important. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means readers need to be able to verify information has already been published by a reliable source. Please read those links and you will understand why your edits are reverted. Beach drifter (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Bennett. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Note that this warning has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your edit there constitutes "retaliation", rather than discussion, of the tag. Also note it applies to the other articles where your edits are rapidly being reverted. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't happen if you would stop vandalising the pages. Barneystimpleton (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you didn't read any of the links I gave you. I suggest you do, and try to learn how this project works, or you won't be around very long. Beach drifter (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Matt Bennett, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ttonyb (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Matt Bennett, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bennett. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1991. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilNtalk to me 03:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Justin Bieber. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilNtalk to me 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from further edits to the article. However, please do participate in the discussion at Talk:Justin Bieber. Since consensus there is that the birthdate is supported elsewhere, further discussion is the only way to move forward. Continuing to edit war will only result in your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WITHOUT SOURCES. Which is what I've been trying to say, but Arthur and the other people continue to stay on their high horse. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is a source cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to 1991, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ttonyb (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vandalise. I was told there were only going to be internationally known people in there, henceforth I removed non-internationally known ones. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..I wasnt. I was told only people known internationally would go on pages like that, so I complied. I'm not trying to prove any points. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you told that? I see you trying to assume that's the case from your edit summaries, but I don't see any such statement made by another editor to you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a coincidence that this followed your own edits being removed, then? - Vianello (Talk) 03:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know exactly where he was told this. And here's an example: exampleNavalExpanse (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote the aforementioned policy page. "If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content... Do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. Do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page." Going on a removal spree as an (over)reaction to someone else's opinion is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. If this really were simply an issue of enforcing some consensus-agreed-upon policy, the mass removal would have been completely non-contentious, I think. Of course, there's always the chance, as said, this was truly just a good faith implementation of a perceived policy. It doesn't matter either way to me. You know what happened, you know not to do, and that's all I really ask. - Vianello (Talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ttonyb (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did I in ANY WAY vandalise? That's just making me feel even more that you are that other user, and you're trying to get me blocked. Barneystimpleton (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably enhancing the description even as I ask, but what evidence do you have that File:VJWTB.jpg was released into the public domain? —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:VJWTB.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://twitpic.com/186uj6. As a copyright violation, File:VJWTB.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:VJWTB.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:VJWTB.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.orgor a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:VJWTB.jpg.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't publishing a non-copyrighted image on a site like that be public domain? Barneystimpleton (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Per the Twitpic terms of service, copyright remains with the uploader. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your addition to the article - Ariana Grande. I want to make sure you understand the reasoning behind everyone removing it. Recent years such as 1994 are reviewed against the criteria in WP:RY. I understand you are adamant about adding this person to the article, so I would suggest you add a comment in the talk page of 1994 and get consensus that adding the person is in concert with the purpose of the article. Until you get consensus, you risk reversal, and ultimately engaging in edit warring. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks and my best to you... ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you are also at three (or four, depending on perspective on prior edits) reverts on 1994 today; any further reverts without discussion are likely to be interpreted as edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this pertains to Barneystimpleton. I don't think I have edited 1994 but once in the last 24 hours. ttonyb (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at 1994. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 06:32, 21 March 2010 (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).
i should not be the one blocked. he was removing a perfectly valid entry for completely no reason, which is considered vandalism, and i looked at the guidelines for the 3 r r thing and it said that vandalism doesn't count. He said some crap about some guidelines for entry, like 10 articles in other languages, but almost none of the other ones were there. An actress in a notable series and a Broadway musical is far more notable than some Korean tennis player.
Decline reason:
Please review the definition of vandalism: good faith edits are not vandalism. Then re-read the guidelines for the three-revert rule and make a new unblock request, focusing on your conduct in this situation: what you did to get blocked and how you act in a similar situation so that you follow the guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2010 (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.
I'd also like to comment that just because some things exist on Wikipedia that don't meet inclusion criteria does not mean everything that doesn't meet them is now permissible. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for an outline of this. I have no idea if this inclusion did or didn't meet these criteria. I'm simply responding to the argument that it should have been included because "none of the other ones were there". Article B being non-notable and included doesn't mean article A gets a free pass. - Vianello (Talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have again removed your addition to the article - Ariana Grande. As stated above, I want to make sure you understand the reasoning behind everyone removing it. Recent years such as 1994 are reviewed against the criteria in WP:RY. I understand you are adamant about adding this person to the article, so I would again encourage you add a comment in the talk page of 1994 and get consensus that adding the person is in concert with the purpose of the article. Until you get consensus, you risk reversal, and ultimately engaging in edit warring. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks and my best to you...
If you continue adding the entry you will be again barred for Edit warring. I again highly suggest you create an entry in the talk page to discuss and get consensus for the addition. ttonyb (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no, because there should be no need when it's painfully obvious that she's notable Barneystimpleton (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1994. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilNtalk to me 20:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RY: Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question. --NeilNtalk to me 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AGnick.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images are not to be used in actors' infoboxes. Accordingly, it's been removed from the Ariana Grande article, so the image is now orphaned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the fair use rationale guidelines linked above and explain what exception should be granted to Ariana Grande to use a non-free image of her in her article. It is an established guideline that promotional photos should not be used in the infobox in the biography of a living person; it would require a rather unusual set of circumstances for one to be acceptable in Grande's article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I AM NOT vandalizing the page. You adding that Twitpic reference doesn't even confirm that "Video Chat" is the name of a future episode. QuasyBoy 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be rude, I stand corrected. I just needed to tilt my head a bit more. I hope there are no hard feelings. :) QuasyBoy 3:11, April 1 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:AGascat.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AGascat.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that a valid fair use rationale must be supplied. Illustration of an actress is not sufficient rationale, since free images may be obtained of living persons. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Victoriouscast.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at File talk:Victoriouscast.jpg. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please retract your uncivil comment and please note that your continued use of uncivil comments will get you banned from editing or creating articles. I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL.ttonyb (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please be aware that we do not use non-free images, such as File:AGascat.png, for depiction purposes of living people. Ariana Grande is most emphatically alive, and also active in her profession. There is no reason that a free image can not be created of her. As such, the image blatantly fails WP:NFCC #1. Also see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, especially point #3. This use is not permitted. I've removed the image from the article, tagged it as replaceable fair use, and tagged it as orphaned. All non-free images on Wikipedia must be in use on at least one article. Both of those tags make it subject to deletion. Do not remove either of these tags unless the image comes into use on article and/or there is an exceptionally strong reason why a free image of her can not be created. Simply removing the tags without fixing the problem won't do. If you have questions, ask. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:AGnick.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have again removed your addition to the article - 1994. As stated above, I want to make sure you understand the reasoning behind everyone removing it. Recent years such as 1994 are reviewed against the criteria in WP:RY. I understand you are adamant about adding this person to the article, so I would again encourage you add a comment in the talk page of 1994 and get consensus that adding the person is in concert with the purpose of the article. Until you get consensus, you risk reversal, and ultimately engaging in edit warring. If you have any questions, please let me know. If you continue adding the entry you will be again barred for Edit warring. I again highly suggest you create an entry in the talk page to discuss and get consensus for the addition. Thanks and my best to you... ttonyb (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fucks sake, give it up. 1994 isn't a "recent year". 16 years ago isn't recent. I shouldn't need to get any "consensus" horsecrap. Barneystimpleton (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked twice for this edit war. I echo the comments above, and would politely suggest if you are serious about adding this link to the page you start by suggesting it on the talk page to gain consensus. That's the best way to do it without engaging in another edit war. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you just removed the section again after QuasyBoy restored it. Please explain why. liquidluck✽talk 21:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that many articles on TV series have details on critical reception please describe your objection *on the talk page*. Please refrain from edit warring as you've already been blocked twice for that. --NeilNtalk to me 00:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CatAG.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this image suffers the same flaws that File:AGascat.png did: non-free images cannot be used to illustrate actresses. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victorious. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ttonyb (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please following suggestion and discuss on the talk page before again removing the text. Thanks You... ttonyb (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2010 (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).
WTF nobody gave me a good reason to leave it there and i explained why it should be removed theres no reason for me to be blocked
Decline reason:
This is your third block for edit warring, so you knew full well that it would lead to another block, and there's no evidence that you've commented on Talk:Victorious in the past two weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2010 (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.
I EXPLAINED IT IN THE EDIT SUMMARY THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i do NOT deserve this block AT ALL, especially since some vandal keeps removing the image for no reason then it gets tagged as an orphanpicture meaning it will get deleted for no reason by the time this block would endBarneystimpleton (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the image has been explained at least twice on your talk page, including the section above this sequence of comments. Non-free images may not be used in the infobox of a biography of a living person (see WP:NFCC). —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image can't be used. You've been told repeatedly it can't be used. It's not vandalism to remove an image when it doesn't follow the rules. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC #1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." A free image of Grande would serve the same purpose, so the non-free image may not be used. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That means "Don't use it." It's not free content, so we don't use it. Even if you don't understand the rule, you shouldn't be disregarding it. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly and simply: Because it does not follow Wikipedia rules for the use of images. Wikipedia rules state that pictures used in biographies of living persons can't be copyrighted. End of story. --NeilNtalk to me 01:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're confused about what a "free image" and a "non-free image" is? A non-free image is a copyrighted image—almost every image on the internet. A "free image" is an image that has either been explicitly released into the public domain or that has been licensed under a Creative Commons license. In almost all circumstances, only "free" images are allowed to be used in biographies. That's why there are so many biographies without pictures. liquidluck✽talk 01:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barneystimpleton, I’m sorry if you were insulted by this message template I placed here. My only intent was to notify you for the reason of your latest block, which was for violations of WP:3RR on the Victorious article. I was not able to put the message on your page immediately because of several edit conflicts, and I am sorry for that as well.
When your one week block has expired, you are welcome to return and edit as long as you abide by our policies. Thank you. — Satori Son 01:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You can when it's not notable or worthy for inclusion, regardless of if it was good or bad reception." is not a explanation. You need to explain why "it's not notable or worthy for inclusion". --NeilNtalk to me 01:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
does anybody care about what some grumpy balding asshole says about a show? no Barneystimpleton (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the reason for the removal was you don't like the reviews/reviewers? Variety and the Boston Herald are hardly obscure blogs. --NeilNtalk to me 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:ArianaKCA.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. liquidluck✽talk 04:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop uploading copyrighted images. If you have met Ariana Grande and have access to a picture of her that you own the copyright to, please upload that image only to Wikipedia- not an image you find on the internet. You can also ask Grande/her representatives to upload an image using Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. If you do not own the copyright to an image of Grande, we will simply have to wait until someone does upload one to Wikipedia, Flickr, or somewhere else and explicitly states that they have released the image under a creative commons license. liquidluck✽talk 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Vtitlecard.png[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Vtitlecard.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 within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Victoriouscast.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Victorious, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Confession0791talk 13:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Vtitlecard.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. MTV is a proper source for the Justin Bieber article. Candyo32 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Bennett. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Note that this warning has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your edit there constitutes "retaliation", rather than discussion, of the tag. Also note it applies to the other articles where your edits are rapidly being reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive comments. 
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
