User talk:Clfan91

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, Clfan91, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Shubinator (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Agwiki.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Agwiki.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to iCarly, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Checker Fred (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) how the fuck is that not "constructive" its even sourced Clfan91 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia does not count as a source, that is why your edits are being reverted. If you can post another source, it will be considered. P Carn (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ICarly. 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. If you think a change needs made, explain it on the talk page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message I left at Talk:ICarly#Victorious crossover worth a mention?. Had you taken the matter to the talk page for discussion like this, instead of re-adding the information without developing consensus for it, I would not have blocked you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring (violation of the three-revert rule). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 23 January 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).

Clfan91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

how fucking dare you. i did nothing wrong. you should be blocked, not me. my edits were SOURCED and you had no right to remove them. this is unacceptable and there is no reason for me to be blocked from editing. you are nothing more than a cyber bully

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 22:20, 23 January 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.

Sourcing is not the issue. You acknowledged that reverting a page more than three times is edit warring. You then proceeded to make another edit to the page in violation of the three-revert rule, instead of discussing the issue on the article's talk page. I would suggest re-reviewing the three-revert rule as well as the guidelines on civility. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the remainder of your block due to your blatant incivility and attacking others. Be advised that further edit-warring and incivility will lead to longer blocks in the future. Regards, –MuZemike 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]