User talk:Mrwallace05

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Please stop the mass genre changes. Start a talk page discussion to get consensus before unilaterally changing genres. ChakaKong^talk 13:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your

]

Mrwallace05, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mrwallace05! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Talkback

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Tomorrow Comes Today, you may be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at

Stop making lame, genre warring changes to Beatles articles.

talk) 03:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry my edits have difficulty walking.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 Hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Abbey Road. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked you for one week per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, you may be blocked from editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You have received previous warnings and blocks for this. If you want to edit productively you really need to stop this behavior. MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at Damon Albarn, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STATic message me! 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Your edits to

talk) 00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at A Hard Day's Night (album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You've been warned about this enough times that a level four warning is appropriate at this time. Radiopathy •talk• 22:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit puzzled here - it was sourced... Mrwallace05 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here that might be of interest to you. Radiopathy •talk• 23:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have just been blocked, DESPITE MY JUSTIFICATION, WHICH WAS RUDELY IGNORED BY CALLANECC, THE USER WHO BLOCKED ME, I urge you to revisit the cited discussion, and read my comments. Or maybe that's a bit too difficult, since it clearly was for Callanecc. Mrwallace05 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Routine Day until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, you blocked me for "abusing multiple accounts". Please point out to me the abuse by the accounts Beatlemanioose and You'reNotMyBrain, because I can't see it. These are not sock puppet accounts, they are different accounts. Have a look at their edit histories for proof. They have nothing to do with socking or vandalism. Please unblock these two accounts. Mrwallace05 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse is that you were using undisclosed alternate accounts to edit in the same subject area, which is forbidden as it will cause your position to appear like it has more support than it really does. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, please take a small amount of your time to look through the contributions of the two accounts. You will notice that any genre changes are either sourced, or reverts of genre vandalism. None of them are used to support any edits by this or any other account associated. Mrwallace05 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:ILLEGIT

: "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited)."

As long as you are editing the same page with both accounts, and fail to disclose that fact, you are violating Wikipedia policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not know that, therefore I honestly, truly, and wholeheartedly apologise. But aren't the contribution histories of these two accounts enough proof that I do not mean to violate Wikipedia? And that if these accounts are unblocked they will be used to edit in the same nature as the edits seen on the history: sourced, good faith, and, in many cases, fighting vandalism? During the short time for which I've been blocked, I have seen many pages that I can help, be it adding reliably sourced material or reverting an undiscussed, unsourced genre change. Mrwallace05 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this and this, I would say Mrwallace05 and the truth are strangers. Piriczki (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mrwallace05,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Looking Glass (song) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. valereee (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Klaatu - Calling Occupants.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Klaatu - Calling Occupants.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 09:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]