User talk:TellyShows

Hello, TellyShows and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one 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 interested in learning more about contributing, 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. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments 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 Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for 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 Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2019

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Lauren Harries, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lauren Harries. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lauren Harries. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nadine Coyle have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism, as you did at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Kellie Maloney, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kellie Maloney. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kellie Maloney. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kellie Maloney. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Kellie Maloney. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Celebs on the Farm, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caprice, David Potts and Love Island (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) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Some of your recent edits are raising concerns over whether they are lacking constructive input, or may potentially be vandalism. Please be careful on how you edit articles; you already have been through two blocks for your editing behaviour, so please do not lapse back into it. GUtt01 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Collins

Hello. Thank you for restoring Gemma's guest appearances section. I was changing something and must have removed it accidentally without realising. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I also added Gemma’s upcoming Crystal Maze appearance to the list TellyShows (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you having an issue adding an image to Kim Woodburn? I just noticed your many edits. – DarkGlow (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kim Woodburn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Roberts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image use on Wikipedia

Please do not upload copyright-protected images of living persons under a fair use rationale. Images of living persons cannot be claimed under fair use policy as they nearly always fail non-free content criteria number 1, specifically "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." As long as it is possible that there could be a free image of the subject available for use, or there could be one available in the future, then fair use cannot be claimed for the copyrighted images. Thank you,-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kim Woodburn.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kim Woodburn.jpeg. 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) 17:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Love Island (series 5) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Love Island (series 5). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced material to BLP articles after this block expire, I expect your next block will be indefinite. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything added was correct. Manners cost nothing by the way.TellyShows (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, according to you. Source your material or don't add it please; it's a fundamental policy around here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I forgot to add a reference to information added to Sophie Anderson (actress). And am given a two week block. This information was correct and I was going to add a reference. Information is added without references all the time. Removing the information until I added the reference would have been just fine.

Decline reason:

You seem to have quite the history of vandalism, edit warring, and adding unsourced content. This is not a case of "forgetting" to add a reference on one occasion. Unblock declined. You need to start adding references ***the first time*** you make an edit, instead of leaving it to other editors to clean up after you (and, often, edit warring with them...) ST47 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block had nothing to do with edit warring or anything else. This was purely a malicious block because I forgot to add a reference. And I very rarely add unsourced content without backing it up. A two week block is ridiculous.

Decline reason:

There is no grounds to unblock you unless you are willing to take some ownership of your actions and indicate that you fully understand WP:BLP(which your earlier request does not; all information in a BLP should be sourced when added). I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2019 (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.

331dot beat me to it, but @TellyShows:, you sure do edit war a lot. Including with yourself (and here, and here). This in addition to all your unsourced edit warring with other people, like this revert (and again), this one, a WP:3RR violation initial edit revert 1 2 3 4 5. If you don't understand why this isn't okay, then you're going to find yourself permanently blocked pretty soon. ST47 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Love Island (American TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

File permission problem with File:Kim Woodburn.png

Thanks for uploading File:Kim Woodburn.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]