User talk:HipHopVisionary

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 07:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopVisionary, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhDv2.0 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I'm not sure whether or not to bother starting an AN/I thread about this. You will likely be blocked for the

sockpuppetry

before the case would go anywhere. At the current rate, you can expect an extended block. If, for whatever reason, the block is not substantial, you can expect to be addressing this at AN/I.

You have yet to comment on the sock case outlined above. Historically, not addressing a sock case has been a bad move.

At present, there is NOT a consensus to remove the material. You have been through a block for edit warring already. If you are blocked again for edit warring on the same issue, the block will likely be quite long or indefinite. Consider this your final warning. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that under our categorization rules, a person does not get duplicate-filed in both subcategories and parent categories of those same subcategories at the same time. Specifically, he is already in Category:Businesspeople from Toronto, Category:Male actors from Toronto and Category:Musicians from Toronto — which means that he does not also go directly into Category:People from Ontario, because everybody in a Toronto-specific category is already in the Ontario category by virtue of the Toronto categories being subcategories of the Ontario one. So please do not readd him to that category again. Actually not "please": just don't do it. Bearcat (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not asking for a unblock. I'm looking for a administrator's attention. Okay, My other account I created three years ago was

Talk:Drake (rapper)#Feuds

. Thank you.

Decline reason:

(1) Please don't abuse the unblock template when you are not requesting an unblock. If you do so again your talk page access is likely to be removed. (2) No you don't have "rights" on any part of any Wikipedia page: see

talk) 09:37, 2 October 2015 (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.

Thanks for uploading File:Gypsy food.jpg. 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 [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS 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 [email protected].

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 on 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. Safiel (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gypsy food.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Cher Lloyd signature.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the