User talk:TheRatedRKOLegendKiller

Re:

I apologise if your actions were in good faith, however, you did not provide a reliable source to back up your claims, and that information is hardy encyclopedic material anyway. Upon checking the history of your talk page, I notice you had been been warning before, so I labelled your edit as vandalism. My apologies again if this was incorrect, however, in future please provide a reliable source to back up your edits. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirects

Your redirects were deemed unhelpful and malicious (and yes, I do know what the word means) by members of WP:PW. They were subsequently deleted by a Wikipedia administrator. Clearly, I am not the only person who thought that they added nothing to Wikipedia. And yes, you violated Wikipedia policy by resorting to name calling. Please do not continue to question my vocabulary. I find it laughable when someone claims that I do not "no" (sic) what a word means. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you again remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Phil Collins, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing. Please note that, as you have already deleted seven warnings from your talk page, I am using a level four warning. You are demonstrating a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies, and I urge you to change your editing practices, as you will be blocked if this continues to be a problem. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to 12 Rounds (film). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phil Collins at United.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Phil Collins at United.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 31 hours. To contest this block, add the text

{{unblock|I am providing proof of my findings. I'm sure if you went on every page of wikipedia, you could find reasons to ban everybody for not providing sources, which I try to do. I would also like to be told where my "vandalism" has been harmful, because as far as I know I try to make wikipedia a more enjoyable place than the dullness it is. Lighten up.}}

on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your personal opinion of Phil Collins may be, we require you to abide by wikipdia policies in the postings you make here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to contest your block. which you have every right to do, please use the {{unblock}} template, and another admin will consider your request. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:43, 22 November 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am providing proof of my findings. I'm sure if you went on every page of wikipedia, you could find reasons to ban everybody for not providing sources, which I try to do. I would also like to be told where my "vandalism" has been harmful, because as far as I know I try to make wikipedia a more enjoyable place than the dullness it is. Lighten up.

Decline reason:

We are an encyclopedia. If you find this dull, please go elsewhere. You will remain blocked until you understand our policy on the biographies of living persons. — Sandstein 16:09, 22 November 2008 (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.