User talk:Destructor rph

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Kickin' It has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kickin' It was changed by Destructor rph (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957735 on 2014-01-07T17:44:49+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, No Man's Sky, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:H&K m27 infantry assault rifle.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:H&K m27 infantry assault rifle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:HK 121 Light Machine Gun.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:HK 121 Light Machine Gun.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status, as you did at File:HK 121 Light Machine Gun.jpg. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright and copyright infringement very seriously. Images and other media may only be uploaded and included if they meet the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Routine notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm Amaury. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Death of Leelah Alcorn— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Freshacconci, you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci talk to me 01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destructor rph, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

freshacconci talk to me 01:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Freshacconci. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. freshacconci talk to me 01:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nakon 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=I feel like i should be unblocked because of these reasons. I realize now that i went about the wrong way of attempting to make change. I was agging on edit warring and as Kosten (from support) made me realize that edit warring is the absolute worst way to go about changing a page. If i'm unbanned i will start over. I will be more civilized and use the Talk page to change pages and peoples opinions on these pages. Thank you for your time.}}

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destructor rph. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 23:35, 23 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I was not in any way sockpuppeting. There were multiple friends of mine, but that is not sock puppeting.

Decline reason:

meatpuppetry (which you now admit you engaged in) is just as blockable as sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 24 March 2015 (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.

That would be "meatpuppeting" then. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]