User talk:Ykral

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to American Express. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Esrever ^(klaT) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Adam_Goldstein

Your comments at the Adam Goldstein talk page do not pertain to the article, its improvement or to anything to do with Wikipedia. They have been removed twice. Talk pages are not forums to post personal thoughts or editorials on individuals. If you continue to inject such commentary onto talk pages, you are likely to be sanctioned. --HidariMigi (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Foxx

Thank you for your recent edits to Jamie Foxx. Unfortunately, you did not include a WP:RS, which is needed for a WP:BLP. Thanks again! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jamie Foxx. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jamie Foxx. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jamie Foxx. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
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 to Jamie Foxx, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been advised of WP:BLP policy, in that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. It is very likely that Jamie Foxx was a supporter of Toots, many celebrities were, but since the latter was executed for his crimes the claim can be considered controversial - thus you need clear references to reliable sources for you edit. Instead, you simply edit warred to place the information in the article. Under the circumstances I have blocked you indefinitely until you indicate your understanding of the policies regarding BLP articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

my edits reference the movie below which lead directly to foxx's participation and also to "tookie"'s page and to the movie page - there is no need to clutter the foxx page with more links when the below-cited film already has 3 of them - a simple look below would have caused you to refrain from your comment of extraordinarly claims and sources

Decline reason:

There is no "movie below" on this page. At any rate, our rules prohibit both edit warring and adding unsourced controversial content to biographies of living people. All controversial content must be directly accompanied by a reference to a reliable source. Sandstein 12:39, 9 January 2010 (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 don't think you understand simple english, the reader is led to links and cites already approved. what are you going on about?