User talk:Notshane

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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicktoons TV.png

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please stop your

synthesis into articles, as you did at True Jackson, VP, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Nicktoons (TV channel). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively

.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Mad (TV series), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at

Nicktoons (TV channel), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Daniel Case (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons deserves those logos. As most other articles on Wikipedia showcase old logos. And MikeWazowski is the only person whose disrupting my edits. Everyone else seems to agree with me otherwise that the Nicktoons channel article should showcase its old logos. Notshane (Talk | Contributions) 01:45, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I do not troll, i was just putting that there because it was a fact. I should have referenced it though. And putting logos on an article is NOT a disruptive edit as many other channel articles do the same.

Decline reason:

This talk page is astounding. You had a good run, most users don't get away with being warned thirty or forty times before a block comes along. The bottom line is that you appear to be either a deliberately disruptive user or you are

incompetent

as far as editing here is concerned. Editing Wikipedia is not for everyone, maybe when you've grown up a bit you will be able to see how things went wrong for you here.

Please read the

talk) 04:16, 14 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I shouldn't have overdone it on putting out non referenced research. I have been known for doing that numerous times here. Give me one more chance, and i promise i will look for good references when editing articles before putting out the research. i haven't always made bad edits. And most of my disruptions are because of orphaned images as well, though this is because most of the people here don't believe that the images i upload belong in that place (e.g. old Nicktoons logos). But the point is that i won't put out research unless i have a reference to back it up. And i won't be disruptive anymore with my editing.

Decline reason:

You've been warned so many times...there is no way that we can believe that you've suddenly seen the light. I looked through your edit history, and not only do I not see even a single attempt to add referenced content, a lot of what you added was highly dubious, or your personal opinion, or otherwise speculative and unencyclopedic. You didn't even change after being blocked last time. At this point you're going to need to make use of the

WP:STANDARDOFFER--come back in 6 or more months, give us some evidence to show that you've changed, and then we can consider an unbolck. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2011 (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.

You had literally tens of chances to get references for whatever you posted, as this very talk page will attest to. You failed to do so every single time. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:01, 17 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I guess i am not very bright. Though i shouldn't have overdone it on my personal opinions. During my early years on Wikipedia, all i did was pump up episode lists and put true statements on articles that don't need a reference (such as what i did on the Mountain Dew article by putting "(stylized as Mtn Dew)") and more recently this year, started putting up images. If i were to be unblocked, i would go back to my earlier roots of improving articles of the slightest ways until I'm ready to make big changes. As for the references, the only proof that i know of right now is what I've done on the Super Mario War article, an article created by me. If i do put out statements on articles, i will have a reference to back them up this time. Also, i have a tendency to repeat things that I've said earlier. Though this doesn't happen often.

Decline reason:

No thank you. Your change of heart should have happened many many warnings ago. Perhaps your best choice would be to

BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 17 August 2011 (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.

If you really don't believe that I've changed then i will have to prove it to you. I'm gonna return in 2012 and my edits will be disruptive no more. Notshane (Talk | Contributions) 07:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Super Mario War

The article Super Mario War has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has only two sources and does not meet the notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Super Mario War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super Mario War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario War(2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hey. I came back in 2012 like you guys said, and i am here to ask for one more chance to edit on Wikipedia. I promise my edits won't be disruptive anymore. I have edited other places well i was gone, and even went on to become an administrator at the Cartoon Network Wiki. Any future edits i do will have a source in them, and i will not make edits that are just plain rumor anymore unless the rumor has a source accompanied with it to prove that the rumor is true. So please, i ask that i have one more chance here, to make edits that are true, have a source, and are not disruptive. Notshane (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, it's time to decline this. Your suggested "article" is of very, very poor quality. I'm sure you mean well, but

competence is also required, and I'm afraid nothing you've done as part of the second chance demonstrates it. Come back in a few years. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:04, 5 May 2012 (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.

Errrr, non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki's don't count ... (

BWilkins ←track) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've always understood this clause as "demonstrate some maturity". Of course, experience with other WMF wikis is preferrable, but not required, imho. I personally don't mind to unblock, but only if a couple of other admins agree with me. Max Semenik (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree - I don't know how easy it to move "up the chain" at the other wiki, but http://cartoonnetwork.wikia.com/wiki/User:Notshane and http://cartoonnetwork.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Leaderboard do not really tally up with anyone that's disruptive.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the Cartoon Network wikia page makes me strongly inclined to disagree with Ronhjones' analysis. A thorough reading of Notshane's user talk page as of the moment I'm checking it clearly shows that 1) Notshane isn't an admin there so much as he is, according to his own claims, almost the only editor of any type. He's an admin solely because he's, well, actively editing. 2) He was less than honest about his editing behavior there. In July 2011, he says that he's giving up on that wikia because its "I've noticed a lot of vandalism on this wiki lately, and its driving me crazy. I've been editing this wiki to rid of the vandalism, but it keeps coming back....I'm sick and tired of changing this back over and over again, so i decided to leave this wiki for good." Then, on August 17, Notshane announces that he has returned "because i can see that its falling apart again. Furthermore, i am gonna attempt to adopt it so that i can improve it a lot because this wiki needs all the help it can get." Sorry, but I don't believe that. Because that's the exact day that Bwilkins and I told him that his block was not being overturned and that he needed to go work on another Wikimedia project (I guess he misunderstood/missed the "wikimedia" part).

Now, I'm not 100% against unblocking at this point...a quick review of his recent edits there seem to be okay (though I don't know the subject material at all). It's a little harder to evaluate, since they don't seem to have a requirement for RS like we do, which, in fact, was the major problem before. But I did want to clarify that looking closely at his work there raises concerns for me. Like MaxSem, I also want to hear other people's opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me leaving The Cartoon Network Wiki and returning had nothing to do with the events that occurred here. I left that Wiki for my own reasons, though after thinking it through, i didn't want it to turn into a spam paradise. So many people make articles concerning their opinions on Cartoon Network shows, and i remove them about every other day. A true contribution to The Cartoon Network Wiki is to make pages that have a decent amount of information on any Cartoon Network character, show or object seen in the show, or fixing grammar on pages that look like they were edited by a seven year old. I do mean it when i said i changed, and i am willing to put up a true source from any edit i make on an article here on Wikipedia (or edits fixing misspelled words), and i won't put fake rumors anymore. The work i do on The Cartoon Network Wiki is mostly making articles about Cartoon Network shows, characters and the actors who voiced said characters. I put categories, pictures and anything necessary to compliment the article. Though i am sorry about not knowing what a "Wikimedia Project" was, as i thought it just meant editing fan wikis. I have made mistakes here a lot, though not all of the edits i made here were terrible. Most of them were just fixing grammar problems and adding pictures, which are helpful edits. I did change, and if you guys are willing to give me another chance here, then i will prove it with good changes to articles with reliable sources and such. Notshane (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show us

This request for unblocking has been place on hold due to your history of

• Familiarizing yourself with
  our basic rules
  .
• Read our guide to improving articles
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
• Click the Edit tab at the top of that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
• Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
• Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, add {{
  administrator
  will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{

]

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.

I am a little confused after reading the fifth part of how to contribute positively to Wikipedia ("Copy the source of that article and paste it at the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading"). Can you show me an example of how to do that please? Like, how that works. I got what i am supposed to put in text form, but i am just a little confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:14, 17 February 2012‎ (talk • contribs) Notshane

Below is an example of what to do. Of course, you should do it with a copy of a real article, whereas I have used a fake article to illustrate the point. (There is no real article called

talk) 09:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cartoonnetworkstudios.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block Still On Hold

Um, not trying to be rude here, but i put my example edit out already about almost two months ago and non of you admins have reviewed it to see if its Wikipedia material. I just wanna know: how long is it gonna take? Notshane (talk)

• Unfortunately, unblocks on hold don't show up in the list of pending unblock requests, so they tend to get forgotten. However, I've asked the admin who put this on hold to have a look.
  talk) 14:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think part of the problem is that the above "sample" is not what could be considered to be a "significant improvement" as per the directions. It's been trimmed, but includes

BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That is an image that i uploaded about a year ago. It was on the Cartoon Network Studios article for quite sometime now, so that cannot be counted as a felony because the image just recently got orphaned and it was on that article for a long period of time. It served as a purpose to represent an older logo of Cartoon Network Studios which was why i uploaded it. That logo lasted for nine years so i thought that it deserved to be on the article, but i guess i was wrong. I didn't even know that orphaned images would cause my account to gain further disruption, so i guess i really don't deserve to comeback on here. If you do manage to change your mind, then i am willing to make contributions that are actually useful to Wikipedia. I won't try to go on and make edits that are large yet, since i have no experience in making long articles due to my small vocabulary, but i will try small and simple edits with a source if needed, and within time my vocabulary will expand further and i will be able to make edits that are long and meaningful to the article. That is my word on the situation, and i hope you take the time to really think about the unblock. Notshane (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Stimpy

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Stimpy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stimpy 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. JJ98 (Talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Moxy Show (logo).jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

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) 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barnyard Dawg 2011.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barnyard Dawg 2011.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. Steel1943 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ren Höek.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stimpy.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]