User talk:Revilal90

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin contributing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Fæ (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne: Genre Changes

Hi, I noticed that you changed the pop punk genres on Girlfriend and The Best Damn Thing to pop rock. The biggest problem was that you didn't simply add pop rock, you CHANGED pop punk; this meant that the sources for pop punk were being incorrectly used for pop rock. If you wish to add a genre please provide a source. Thank you. ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I also wanted to say that I don't think you're editting with a neutral point of view. You seem to be leaning more AGAINST Lavigne and her music because of the genres; you MUST be impartial on Wikipedia. This is just how your edits seem to me personally and I wanted to let you know. Of course I could just be talking a load of rubbish, if that's the case, take no notice of me lol. Zylo1994 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dookie, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. PM800 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Dookie, you may be blocked from editing. PM800 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't "distruptive editing"! I deleted Alternative Rock because Dookie hasn't any alternative rock songs or influences! I'm getting tired of your wikipedia style stupidness. Why can't I delete something that is wrong? Why?--Revilal90 (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you make the effort to add a reasonable justification before making significant changes to an article (such as removing referenced material or repeated deleting text) and mention that in the edit comment, you are far less likely to receive warnings of this type. Even trivial and non-controversial corrections should have an edit comment. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my opinion at "edit summary".--Revilal90 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dookie. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Michig (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I should be blocked. Who sais that PM800 is free to edit that page and I'm not allowed to change the things that the wrote there?--Revilal90 (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor that's close to breaking the three-revert rule on this article.--Michig (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PM800 is reverting my edits just because he doesn't like them. He is reverting anyone's edits just because they have a different opinion.--Revilal90 (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making comments speculating about PM800's possible motives is considered a failure to Assume good faith. You are free to discuss the corrections you would like to add on the article talk page and attempt to reach a consensus on the issues there but please take time to read the guidance on edit-warring before making any further changes to the article itself should you wish to do so within the next 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war is his fault. He is reverting my edits because he doesn't like other oeple's opinions.--Revilal90 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are at fault, but you must resolve the issue by discussion rather than encouraging an edit war on the article. If you are concerned about the behaviour of any other contributor, please consider using one of the Dispute resolution processes designed to handle such problems. Fæ (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Dookie, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PM800 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revilal90, with regard to your note on my talk page, I have to agree with PM800 that this final warning is fair. You have had multiple warnings here, been provided with links to helpful policy documents (please take time to read some of them) and have had your edits reverted not just by PM800 but other editors too. Should your pattern of edits continue in the same way, then an independent administrator will decide whether to intervene and block your account. If you would like some independent help on interpreting the guidelines or to question about how this system works, please contact the Help desk. Alternatively you can discuss the matter here, and even ask PM800 for his/her suggestions.

My suggestion would be to make a gesture of goodwill by offering to stop editing the Dookie article for at least 7 days and limit yourself to only commenting on that article's talk page. If your suggestions make sense then other editors would make the change on your behalf. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Daniel Case (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even edit that page anymore! --Revilal90 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Justin Bieber, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sparthorse (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CT Cooper · talk 23:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first edit from this account in three months was vandalism, and your previous warnings and blocks make clear you know such edits are unacceptable, I am blocking this account indefinitely barring evidence that you will change your behaviour. Please see WP:INDEF. CT Cooper · talk 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me a warning and then blocked me without doing anything! That wasn't even vandalism, that's what I've heard on the local news! --Revilal90 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned more than enough times previously, and attempting to make jokes about adding nonsense to BLPs is only going to keep the block in place. CT Cooper · talk 23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been warned before because I and an older user were having an editing war, as we both had sources. I was the only one who was warned though, becase I was newer and untrusted. This is another example of unjustice here on Wikipedia. --Revilal90 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things, such as falsely declaring a living person to be dead, that will get an account blocked swiftly, potentially without warning. If you continue to think that such editing is acceptable, then the block will remain in place. CT Cooper · talk 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking indefinitely is communism. Well will my block expire? I have uderstood my mistake, maybe you don't even believe that it wasn't a joke. Still, even if it was a joke, that's not a good reason to block me forever. I want to continue to contribute to the articles I'm interested in. Many times it seems I'm the only one to do so.--Revilal90 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (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).

Revilal90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to make further contributions to Wikipedia Revilal90 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:58, 26 May 2012 (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 have been blocked by foolish reasons. Please prove that Wikipedia is not a totalitarian community.

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).

Revilal90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to make further contributions to Wikipedia. People must have knowledge and I am willing to help them find it here. I understand why I have been blocked and I will no longer have conflicts with other members. I will only post informations that have reliable sources. I expect this community show some democracy though; Being a member for a longer time shouldn't make your point more valid.

Decline reason:

Where's the vandalism, you ask? Here it is. Stop pretending you were just edit-warring. Max Semenik (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2012 (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.

(a) Wikipedia is not a democracy. (b) You are not blocked because of conflicts with other members; you are blocked because of your vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I know, it's a totalitarian community.

(b) Vandalism, but in whose opinion? I was editing a page and an older user didn't like my edits, although they had a reliable source. We started an edit war and I got blocked, while he didn't. Where's the vandalism? I never edited anything just to make fun or mislead people. Now, are you going to unblock me? What exactly can I convince you? Bribe you? People like you are destroying Wikipedia. You're unfair.--Revilal90 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]