User talk:Sbvr6

Image copyright problem with Image:NYCfromHoboken.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:NYCfromHoboken.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nigfinish2.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Nigfinish2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the Interruption[edit]

You have been asked to take the "Nig Finish" bit and discuss it on the talk page. The article was even semi-protected because of the disruption this has caused. Before inserting it again, please take it to Talk:Pardon the Interruption and gain consensus for its inclusion. The onus is on you to explain why this trivial matter should be included. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Pardon the Interruption has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pardon the Interruption. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dlong (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Pardon the Interruption. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. faithless (^speak) 07:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless please do some research before you accuse individuals. I post with my name signed always, I cant be held accountable for other's actions.Sbvr6 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This is an uncivil comment. Calling other editors a 'baby' because you don't get your way can be construed as a personal attack. Please use discretion in the future. faithless (^speak) 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry baby :-)Sbvr6 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zing! I guess you showed me. What a clever, clever boy you are. faithless (^speak) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jmlk 1 7 21:39, 12 February 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).

Sbvr6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for ultimately trying to add what i believed was a valid entry into a wiki page. After learning more i see that the personal attack was offensive. However, calling someone a "baby" on my own talk page, does not warrent a block, as is what faithless seems to have done.

Decline reason:

It looks like you might have also been edit warring on Pardon the Interruption, as it looks like the consensus was against your edits from multiple editors. — slakr^\ talk / 00:45, 13 February 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.

I am not the one who blocked you, nor did I even suggest you be blocked. faithless (^speak) 03:30, 13 February 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).

Sbvr6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that, but the user threatened and then blocked me, because of a comment I made on my personal page. Also, what is the "consensus" One or two individuals, who don't find the post note worthy. Please review the post and see the discussion page.

Decline reason:

Strictly speaking, you reverted the PTI article 4 times in less than 24 hours, which is pretty much an instablock per WP:3RR. In a few hours you'll be able to edit again. I would strongly urge that you avoid making the same edit again, and instead seek consensus on the talk page. You may file a request for comment report if you wish to seek outside, neutral editors to comment on the issue if you feel there is not enough consensus one way or the other at the talk page. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:28, 13 February 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.

When were you ever threatened? Jmlk 1 7 06:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the second entry under this by faithlessthewonderboy. "You will be blocked"

Citation Suggestion[edit]

A web site would be fine for citation, as long as it is a credible web site. Without a citation, the material could simply be opinion or conjecture - which I admit it almost certainly isn't in this case, but it would still be unencyclopedic and would have to be removed. Also, you can sign your comments with four tildes (~). For adding a reference, check out the other references on the page and just use them as a template. Hope this helped. Pwhitwor (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]