User talk:Kellylyn93

Kim Rhodes
Please do not add info about Kim Rhodes' children. This is non-notable information that has already been removed from her article several times. Thank you. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 18:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is unsourced and unnotable. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 21:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As above but I will also add it's a privacy issue. Please read Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 01:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

I DEMAND the block to be removed! This is fact as I am one of Vanessa's closest friend and she would NOT tell me a lie! I DEMAND this block to be REMOVED NOW!!!

VANESSA ANNE HUDGENS IS A SLUT

Kim Rhodes pregnent
Thank you for being more professional with your recent edit to her article. I have left the statement about her being pregnent, but it still needs a reliable source. You say you are her personal friend, but unfortuntly we have no way to confirm that, so we have no choice to disbelieve that. If she really is pregnent, and she want's people to know it, then she would tell the media and there would be a reliable source out there about it. If you can not find one within 7 days, I will be removing the statement. Sorry, but something that controversal can not be on Wikipedia without a reliable source. Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I just would like to add, thank you for not deleting it. If you have seen the Suite Life episode, Lip Synching in the Rain, her stomach is mostly covered, she has her hand on it, and in a few shots, she is even shown from the side and she is much heavier than in previous episodes.


 * I have reverted it back to the fact tag because I just looked through her myspace and I can find nothing that suggest she is pregnant. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Selena Gomez
What was said above at Kim Rhodes applies to Gomez as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Miley Stewart. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Please read article before making changes. Also your change was discussed in the talk page. '' NrDg 02:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Ray vs Robby Ray
See the discussion on talk:Robby Ray Stewart about the name spelling and add your comments if you have strong feeling about how the name should be spelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Martin family
Reguarding your recent edits to the Martin family (of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody) about their real and middle names. Do you have any sources/citations or even episodes that state this?? With your past of providing false info, I find these hard to believe. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again
72 hours. Stop inserting the names of children and other family members. It's unsourced, they are non-notable and violates Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Appeal Block
I would like to request to get this block removed. I am only adding this information because it is true. Also, How can I go about getting a block removed, if the talk page can't be edited either?


 * Well obviously you can edit this page so, use Unblock on this page, click on the link and follow the instructions. However, you need to stop adding unsourced material and you really need to stop adding the names of non-notable children to articles. They are not actors so please respect their privacy, again read Biographies of living persons.

September 2007
Please do not add unreferenced controversial information to Wikipedia articles on living persons. Acalamari 19:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles. 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. '''This information is unsorced and non-notable. STOP POSTING IT!''' --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to List of Hannah Montana minor characters, you will be blocked from editing. NrDg 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
72 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I get this block removed? I feel it is unfair, as I am only entering accurate information. Also, if you can't edit you talk page, what can I do to get a block appealed. I know I can edit it on this account, but I would just like to know how. Thank you.


 * It has been explained twice to you now how to appeal a block. I quote from above "If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text You do it on this talk page.


 * However, you have to stop adding the names of non-notable family members to articles. It may well be true, as you say, but you don't provide any Reliable sources and myspace is not a valid reference source. There is a big difference in the notability of the people you are trying to add and someone like Suri Holmes. That child has appeard in multiple papers and magazines but the people you want to add don't appear to have been mentioned anywhere. Respect their privacy. Read Biographies of living persons. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because information is correct doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. But the information you are adding isn't even sourced with reliable sources. Please click that link to read more about them. Also read Biographies of living persons. The most important document on here you should read is Verifiability. The first paragraph reads as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." You need to follow Wikipedia policies if you want to edit articles, otherwise you will be continued to be blocked. Pilotboi / talk / contribs 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Selena Gomez
Before you add anymore material based on the fact that you know the person please read Biographies of living persons, Reliable sources, Verifiability and Citing sources. Just because you know them does not mean you can add unsourced material. As an example look at Tanya Tagaq Gillis and this edit. I know the young woman as we both are in the same town and I was talking to her a couple of days ago. I also have know who the IP is and I suspect that the year they gave is correct but without a source it can't be in the article. I also know several of the politicians in Nunavut and could add all kinds of information to their articles but don't because I can't source it and it would violate Biographies of living persons. Please read the links first as nobody wants to block you when you are trying to add information. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again you need a source and a relilable one. There was nothing at tv.com to indicate what you had just entered and that site can be editied by the users making it unrelilable as a source. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
72 hours. Please take the time to find a source that actually has the information. I have checked both ultimatedisney.co and tv.com and neither mentions that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Jonas Brothers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NrDg 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Need something published that I can verify or a mention in the show itself for this level of detail. NrDg 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Middle name not mentioned anywhere obvious on the web. Need someplace I can verify it for myself. Please provide a link or source.''NrDg 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NrDg 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will edit what I feel is appropriate. I am Selena Gomez's sister, so I think I know more about Disney and its stars than you do. So please remember that next time you edit something. Also Selena's middle name is Kayleigh, I think I would know my own sisters' middle name!!!


 * PROVE IT. Too many posers to take anybody's word on it. If you are who you say you are find something that I can verify that backs you up. You should be aware of everything that has ever been published. Until you do that everything that is not backed up with a reliable and verifiable reference will be removed. --NrDg 01:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! This is Selena. I am verifying that my sister is legit, and I want her to add this stuff. She would not add it if was not true! Thanx so much...

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 defamatory content into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Cannot accept anybody's word. Even the person being written about must provide verifiable proof about any additions to article. See WP:BLP for policy and what to do if you disagree with what is in the article.'' NrDg 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Metros 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Another final warning
You have been warned and repetitively blocked for violating WP:BLP. You cannot add unsourced information about living people. Please provide a reliable source for your claim that Kim Rhodes is pregnant. If you keep adding disruptive material, you will be blocked again. It really isn't that hard to work within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you have any questions about how wikipedia works, feel free to ask. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, on the show the Suite Life, she looks very pregnant in 4 episodes.


 * That isn't good enough for wikipedia standards. Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR. Wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish information. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. We can't say that someone is pregnant based on pure speculation. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what is good enough?


 * Did you read WP:RS? It explains clearly what are considered reliable sources on wikipedia. How about a news article on CNN.com? Or even eonline.com? What about her official webpage, or disney.com? If you have a written source for this information, you can ask me if it is reliable, but we do need to make sure that it is attributed to a source so that readers can verify the information. Hope this helps. Also, can you site a source for the middle names of these people?-Andrew c [talk] 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Can you please inform me why I was blocked?

Your talk page history sums it up: repeated insertion of non-notable people (children of celebrities are not inherently notable), unsourced information about living people in violation of WP:BLP, and more general BLP issues. You have been blocked several times previously for exactly the same issues. We take BLP issues very seriously: hence, your three-month block.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If I stop adding unsourced info, can I get my block removed sooner?


 * You've had six previous blocks, which have not altered your editing behavior. This is the seventh.  I think you need this time out, but other admins are welcome to review this.    Acroterion  (talk)  21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a child and you shouldn't be giving me a "time-out". I DEMAND this block to be removed by 12:00 tonight.


 * I agree with Acroterion's block. You've been blocked numerous times for the same issues but it has never stopped you.  Why should we take your word for it this time after all the chances you've had to reform up to this point? Metros (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I AM DEMANDING THIS BLOCK TO BE REMOVED RIGHT NOW. What are you going to do if I don't stop editing the truth?
 * Well if you come back from this block and do it again you'll probably find yourself blocked indefinitely. In other words, you won't be able to edit ever again.  Metros (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So what if I make a new account?
 * Then we'll block that one. People will realize it's you because of your editing style.  Metros (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All I want to do is add the truth. And all of you bitches just want to block the truth. Yeah, that's right I did call you a bitch. If the block would be removed, I will promise that I will not vandilize or you can put the block back on. Why won't you just remove it?!?!
 * Because A. we don't respond to demands like you're making. B. you said you're going to keep adding "the truth" which is the issue because you're not adding sources to show it's the truth.  And C. you just called us "bitches," why should we allow someone who insults us to edit?  If you keep up with comments like that, you'll find this page protected so you can't edit it.  Metros (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Metros brings up some extremely valid points. Here is my advice to you. It is clear from your account history that you have either deliberately abused wikipedia, or continuously violated wikipedia policy out of ignorance. However, through our little chat earlier today, you showed that you were at least interested in seeing why your contributions were disruptive. However, you have been blocked for your editing, and your reaction to the block has been inappropriate. You have made personal attacks on other editors, and made demands that someone in your position has no place making. So here is where we stand. I suggest that you take some time off. Just relax and calm down. One thing you can do is read through wikipedia's policies and guidelines to get a feel of how we work. I especially recommend WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. If you have any questions about how wikipedia works, feel free to ask. Then, if you understand how your edits in the past were problematic, and you seriously would like to contribute to making wikipedia better, then you can request a review of your block. But again, you need to demonstrate you understand exactly where you went wrong, and demonstrate you have the knowledge not to repeat your past transgressions. To request a review of your block, type and enter your reason. And please, wait at least 24 hours before requesting an unblock so that you have time to cool down and read up on wikipedia policy. Thanks, and good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my past actions. Just one quick question. I was looking the Go Diego Go page and there was some info that made no sence, yet it stayed and has not yet been removed. Yet my edits are removed within minutes of editing.

Signing your posts
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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! -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to find out how I can get my block removed. I refuse to sign my post until the block get lifted. I feel it is unfair. How can I get my block removed? Oh, btw, Andrew c called me stupid. He said I that I abused wikipedia out of ignorance.


 * Actually, Andrew C was being patient and nice. The alternative interpretation is that you abused Wikipedia intentionally, which isn't so nice.  Ignorance of Wikipedia policy isn't stupidity.  However, I wouldn't call this paragraph above, signed or unsigned, a good start at getting unblocked.   Acroterion  (talk)  02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Then what is a good start to getting you bitches to remove my block?


 * Not that.  Acroterion  (talk)  02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
This is your last warning. You must use this talk page in a constructive, civil manner, instead of disrupting. If you make any more unconstructive edits to this talk page, the page will be temporarily protected, and you would be unable to communicate with others. Alexfusco5 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How can this block get appealed? If you appeal it, I will tell you a secret about my life(I'm a celebrities sister).

'DON'T YOU DARE REMOVE WHAT I PUT ON THIS PAGE. YOU S.O.B.!!'
 * Did you perhaps miss the message Alexfusco5 gave you at the top of this section about being civil and using this talk page constructively? How is calling people SOBs civil or constructive?  Metros (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Lynn Spears
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

Hi there.

I have just removed an unsourced, unreferenced rumour from the article Jamie Lynn Spears. You did not cite any references, and tthis claim is, so far, only a rumour and has not been confirmed by any reliable source, much less Spears herself. On the contrary in fact, the rumour has been denied. Please cite your references next time.

Additionally, I removed a rather inappropriate comment made by you on the same matter. Please keep your entries written in a professional, encyclopedic manner.

Thank you.

--HistoryMaker2001 (talk)

December 2008
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. NrDg 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)