User talk:SupremeCommander85

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:231147 10150251423690539 594655538 9176839 5725077 n.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:231147 10150251423690539 594655538 9176839 5725077 n.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely 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. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

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 also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from New Line Cinema. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to New Line Cinema, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at New Line Cinema, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Hello, and 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 Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Policy states Wikipedia is not censored. If you wish to discuss this topic further please use the article's talk page. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2011 (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-llists.wikimedia.org. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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. TN X Man 13:40, 20 July 2011 (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).

SupremeCommander85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reasons for doing so were sound and I promise not to do so again.

Decline reason:

Having looked at your disruptive edits, editing contrary to WP:CONSENSUS, complete failure to listen to advice, and now a total lack of acknowledgement that you acted contrary to policy, I'm sorry ... no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08 am, Today (UTC−4)

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).

SupremeCommander85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not trying to cover up my mistakes I am only trying to say that some of my actions were only for the benefit of my children, the removal of templates was due to the extended period time they were there in which the problem was never solved.

Decline reason:

I was all ready to unblock you, but decided to check with the blocking administrator first. I'm glad I did so, because I see you have attempted to evade the block by using another account. Any unblock request needs to clarify why you have used more than one account, and assure us that you will not use another account to evade a block, to attempt to appear to be two different people, or for any other deceptive purposes. If you can do that I will be willing to reconsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2011 (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.

If you were concerned with the amount of time a template had been in place, why not attempt to resolve the problem or update the date attached to the template (note that this would still be improper, but would be preferable to removal), or discuss the template's placement on the article's Talk page, rather than simply removing it? In any case, if you're going to remove templates, why not leave an explanation as to why you are doing so in your edit summary? Especially given that you received multiple warnings about unexplained template deletions, I'm sure you can understand how your actions would be perceived as disruptive. Doniago (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that could be done, I guess next time I should do so as a substitute for removing an old template-SupremeCommander85

Blanking

Please note, you may not remove declined unblock requests while you remain blocked. TN X Man 15:31, 20 July 2011 (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).

SupremeCommander85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am only a single father with five kids, PLEASE, I would just like to continue editing please have a heart I will not attempt censorship ever again can you at least use some form of probation. Also, that other account was one belonging to my friend Paul it was not mine we only share the same IP Address.

Decline reason:

Since you continue to abuse multiple accounts, there is very little chance anyone will unblock you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:19, 20 July 2011 (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.

So, you have a shared IP connection with a friend. And you both make identical edits? And he happens to start editing just after you stop, and happens to decide to start editing again just after you are blocked? (And there are other coincidences too, but I don't want to give you too much help in hiding the evidence.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me examples of these so called "identical edits"-SupremeCommander85

OK, since you ask, this edit and this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to terminate my account and leave Wikipedia for good-SupremeCommander85

Then just walk away and don't come back. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

As the blanking has resulted in editing privileges to this page to be revoked, the blacked material has been restored as pertinent. - J Greb (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]