User talk:OldUncleRemus

Welcome!

Hello, OldUncleRemus! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

The Great Silence edits...

You have placed "citation needed" templates on this article at least twice (here and here) saying "There are no citations given for these claims" etc. This is not true. These statements are sourced within the main text of the article and are within the MOS:LEAD guidelines for the lead section. The lead is supposed to summarize the main content of the article - the "Che" Guevara statement is verified by Reference #28 "Devena, Mario (May 1969). "Gespräch mit Sergio Corbucci". Film #4. Retrieved January 20, 2019".
If you have an issue with the way the statements are verified within the article and within the lead section you need to discuss all of that on the article's talk page and come to an editorial consensus on the matter. Shearonink (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Shearonink

Hello, OldUncleRemus. You have new messages at Talk:The Great Silence.
Message added 23:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to D.O.A. (song), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demon Fuzz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calypso (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Greaser's Palace poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Greaser's Palace poster.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greaser's Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saloon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Greaser's Palace poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Greaser's Palace poster.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Jimi Hendrix, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please review WP:OVERLINKING - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghost Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ike & Tina Turner - Come Together.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ike & Tina Turner - Come Together.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alice in Wonderland (1976 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rated R and R rating (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Sugar Bear per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:23, 13 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no other accounts. This is my first Wikipedia account. OldUncleRemus (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Linking to off-site attacks while making an unblock request will not get you unblocked. I have removed it, and if you do it again you will lose talk page access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no other accounts. This is my first account. The "evidence" provided for accusing me is faulty and false. OldUncleRemus (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will need to explain why(without doing as you did before) if that's the case(and I don't think it is). 331dot (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The claim made that I edited along "similar interests" to a blocked editor is not evidence that I am block evading. I have not broken any rules or had significant conflict with other editors. I still haven't fully figured out the formatting standards or how to use the templates. There was no strong evidence provided connecting me to another user and I don't understand the accusation. I am not a block evader and I did nothing wrong. OldUncleRemus (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're using the same ISP as GangsterPunk, and the behavioral evidence in the SPI case was pretty convincing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again, no evidence is provided. I am not sockpuppetting. I don't know who any of these people are or why you think I am them. I have never had another account on here. Can I get a human to unblock me and not be evaluated by bots that clearly aren't doing their jobs? I did not break sny rules, I am being punished for no reason. I am a victim of your prejudice and racism. OldUncleRemus (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Legitimate concerns raised in the previous declines have not been convincingly addressed. Chetsford (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing administrators of being incompetent, racist bots is bizarre trolling, and it seems like you're just going to keep repeating your demands for evidence when it has already been provided. The next patrolling admin can re-enable your talk page access if desired, but I think we've heard enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]