User talk:JAbedin96

Welcome!

Hello, JAbedin96, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of sources

Hello, I'm Ponyo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person, Shawn Abner, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Shawn Abner are unsourced, inappropriate and disruptive - please stop.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still attempting to add the same inappropriate content. If it continues you will be blocked without additional warnings.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Your addition to Arsène Wenger has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Rndo2014 teesh.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Rndo2014 teesh.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. ///EuroCarGT 22:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ronaldinho 2014 teeth.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Ronaldinho 2014 teeth.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ///EuroCarGT 22:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

I have deleted your two most recent uploads as blatant copyright violations. I strongly suggest that you cease uploading any additional files until you have a better grasp of Wikipedia's copyright and licensing policies.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Robert Lewandowski, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for the repeated addition of unsourced content to biography articles as well as repeated uploads of blatant copyright-violating images despite previous warnings. 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. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Juan Mata. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Micah Richards. He did not make at least five Premier League apps and so doesn't get a medal. A source would be needed to prove he has been given dispensation to receive one. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for the continued addition of unsourced content to biography articles. This particular edit crossed the line from "you need to state your sources" to "you need to be blocked in order to prevent any further disruption". 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. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

June 2014

Your addition to Mesut Özil has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Brede Hangeland. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Shawn Abner. Turgan ^Talk 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the continued addition of unsourced personal info to biographies, clearly inappropriate edits and copyright violations. Timed blocks have not served to curb the disruption, so this block is indefinite, that is you are blocked until you are able to demonstrate that you understand how your edits are disruptive and explain how you will modify your editing to conform with Wikipedia's policies regarding biography articles and copyright requirements. 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. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:31, 3 June 2014 (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).

JAbedin96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have been blocked for no reason, it said i have one more change and I did nothing wrong. Unblock me now.

Decline reason:

You had been blocked twice already for the same reason. And you are not anywhere near a position to make demands like "unblock me now" (rather, that brusqueness goes far to demonstrate that you were properly blocked). — Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2014 (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).

JAbedin96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was blocked after editing Theo Walcott's page, What i edited was true and was sourced as well. Also, i am allowed to make orders like 'unblock me now', so hurry up and do it. I made an edit that was true. The information on that article was false as it is so whoever wrote it should be blocked as well at least.

Decline reason:

Yes, you're allowed to "make orders"; on the other hand, we're allowed to ignore such orders. I don't see any evidence that you have any understanding of the collaborative editing environment here; you've never used an article talk page, which is what you need to do if you find your edits are not being accepted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:56, 3 June 2014 (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).

JAbedin96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, i have learnt my lesson and realise what to do now for future edits. Please can you unblock me now?

Decline reason:

Great! However, just claiming that you know what you did wrong and how to avoid it in the future really doesn't tell us anything useful (for all I know, you believe that all future edits should be made in Portuguese, formatted in Comic Sans, and submitted via carrier pigeon). Please post an unblock request which:

explains what you believe you were blocked for
shows that you understand why the block was needed
indicates what you will do in the future to avoid being blocked again.

Have a read of the appeals guide first; there's useful advice there. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:04, 13 June 2014 (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.

Okay, the reason i was blocked was for using a copyrighted picture on Özil's page which I though was okay but clearly it wasn't. Also i changed Walcott's page slightly to adjust the false information placed. However I did not reference it therefore I will do that next time. I understand why the block was need as it was seen as disruptive editing because it did not follow the designated guidelines. In the future I will make sure to use non-copyrighted pictures and make sure to reference any truthful edits.

Thanks.

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).

JAbedin96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, the reason i was blocked was for using a copyrighted picture on Özil's page which I though was okay but clearly it wasn't. Also i changed Walcott's page slightly to adjust the false information placed. However I did not reference it therefore I will do that next time. I understand why the block was need as it was seen as disruptive editing because it did not follow the designated guidelines. In the future I will make sure to use non-copyrighted pictures and make sure to reference any truthful edits. Thanks.

Decline reason:

If you really think that you have been blocked because of those couple of edits, then you are so out of touch that it is doubtful whether you have the competence to edit Wikipedia. However, I doubt that you really do think that. It is difficult to see how you can be unaware of the fact that problems with copyright go back for a long time, and the problem of adding questionable unsourced content to articles about living people goes back even even further. On one article, you have been waging a very slow edit war for more than nine months, repeatedly posting exactly the same text. You can't possibly be unaware of that, nor can you be unaware that you have continued to do that after being warned about it. It therefore seems that this unblock request indicates ingenuity, rather than incompetence, but it doesn't really matter: either of those is a good enough reason to believe that unblocking you would not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (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.

No, that was not why you were blocked - I suggest you go back and read the history of your own talk page and try to understand the real reason why your multiple blocks were extended to indefinite. (Hint: It wasn't for any one or two specific recent edits) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2014 (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).

JAbedin96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know about the other edits but that was when I didn't know much about editing articles. Now I know the process of editing pages. If you're not going to unblock me now at least edit Theo Walcott's page to what i originally wrote. He does not play as a 'forward' but plays as a midfielder/winger. Change that, for Arsenal he plays on the right wing also know as a winger, you should right he can be deployed as a forward also. But his main position is a WINGER. Can you please unblock me now, i have read the guidelines and if I do get something wrong in the future then please ban me. I know I have made some mistakes but I learnt from the now. Thanks

Decline reason:

No, it doesn't appear you actually have learned from them, as you continue to abuse the unblock template. This many unblock requests in a row is a major disruption of administrator time, and there is a significant backlog of unblock requests that your repeated misuse of the unblock template is exacerbating. As such, I am editing your block to disable your ability to edit this talk page. Should another administrator decide to unblock you in the future, understand that you are on extremely thin ice. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:27, 21 June 2014 (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.

Er, what? All your other errors were back when you didn't know how to edit properly? You've been editing since August last year, and this unsourced BLP addition was just 10 days ago. This unsourced addition was also only 10 days ago. This, for which you were earlier blocked, was only last month. And you have a long record of similar problems, for which you were warned but you simply ignored the warnings and carried on. Are you really telling us that you remained ignorant of these problems and ignorant of how to edit articles up until you were indefinitely blocked 10 days ago, and then you suddenly learned all about how to do it properly? Now, I'm not an admin and I can't decide on your unblock request, but I would seriously recommend you drop this disingenuous "I didn't know any better" nonsense, and try to make a proper attempt to explain to a reviewing admin how you fully understand the problems, and make a convincing commitment to avoid them in future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]