User talk:Pensil

Hi there, it appeared to be vandalism so I reverted it. Sorry for any confusion. --

(Review) 13:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Leon Mobley. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Will ^(talk) 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued blanking of articles. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Barely out of a vandalism block and back at it again? If you persist after this block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. — Coren ^(talk) 03:35, 3 March 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).

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

---

Request reason:

being punished more than once for the same item. I have not violated the 5 pillars which encourages users to be bold. I have not broken the 3 revert rule nor added non encyclopedic material

Decline reason:

This was exactly the thing that got you blocked the first two times, and yet you went and did it again. When the block expires, please limit yourself to constructive edits. —Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 3 March 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.

The link from Case above only happened once and was an accident. When were the other times? Do you have examples?

I not sure what those things were? I constantly try to achieve neutral, accurate, content on WP. I have no agenda. My edits are to improve these articles. Everyone has the same pull here. Do you disagree? I would like specific examples as to why my actions are vandalism.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

In response to your email quoting the same verse; I should point out that by repeating actions which you were warned were improper and then quoting policy as an excuse is viewed badly.

Assuming good faith is a guiding principle here, but an assumption can be overturned by behavior. At this point, I feel you have exhausted this assumption entirely so I would recommend you become more cautious in your future edits. — Coren ^(talk) 23:00, 3 March 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I not sure what those things were? I constantly try to achieve neutral, accurate, content on WP. I have no agenda. My edits are to improve these articles. Everyone has the same pull here. Do you disagree? I would like specific examples as to why my actions are vandalism.

Decline reason:

Blanking a page for the purpose of having it reverted is vandalism. You've been warned repeatedly and blocked before. As Coren has said, community patience is growing thin and your next block will in all likelihood be indefinite. Use the time to actually read the guidelines and when the block expires, make constructive contributions that do not damage the work of others (e.g. blanking). -MBK₀₀₄ 23:38, 3 March 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not been blocked for this before. I have read the guidelines. The warnings came but no activity was done after the first warning. Others saw the warning looked at the alleged violation and warned again or added the block. Look at my contributions and decide for yourself whether or not there is a pattern of vandalism. An indefinite block will result in a full arbitration which no one wants and is very negative and disruptive. Admins need to focus on editing more than policing.

Decline reason:

Blanking pages with no explanation is clear vandalism, and looking at your block log, you have been blocked twice before, on Dec 1 2007 and Feb 29 2008. That the most recent was only 4 days ago shows me that you have not learned. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 4 March 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

unfair blocking. Blocking is to avoid threats to WP. Not for punishment

Decline reason:

Blanking pages with no explanation is clear vandalism, you have been blocked twice before, sorry but no. Blocking is also to protect wikipedia from vandalism. Tiptoety ^talk 01:32, 4 March 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.

Here is an overview of your

• November 2007
  • [1] copyvio warning for R. Winston Morris
  • [2] after your copyvio article was deleted, you re-created it and were subsequently warned to stop deletion the speedy-deletion tags
  • [3] another copyvio warning for the now thrice deleted R. Winston Morris article
• December 2007
  • [4] warning against recreating the R. Winston Morris article which has now been deleted four times in a mere 35 minutes
  • [5] yet another copyvio warning for the recreated article
  • [6] warning against recreating the five times deleted R. Winston Morris article
  • [7] blocked for persistent copyright violations
  • [8] NPOV warning for removing the text "bottom shelf" and replaced it with "delicious" on the Old Crow article [9]
  • [10] warned against blanking [11] the
    Still Searching for Soul
    article
• February 2008
  • your blanking [12] of the Jesse Fibiger article was reverted, but somehow you did not receive any warnings
  • [13] warned against deleting [14] sourced content from Ron Paul (it should be noted that deleting over 8300 bytes of text including multiple citations is obvious vandalism)
  • [15] warned about again deleting [16] sourced content from the North American Union article (deleting a sentence with that is properly sourced with three citations is obvious vandalism)
  • [17] warned again for the exact same vandalism [18]
  • [19] fourth warning against content-deletion vandalism [20] on this article
  • [21] blocked for yet again deleting [22] sourced content
  • [23] warned against needlessly switching [24] articles between UK and US English
• March 2008
  • somehow you missed getting warned for it, but you twice deleted [25], [26] a properly sourced quote from Super Tuesday, 2008
  • [27] warned for deleting content [28] from BigShoulders Digital Video Production
  • [29] blocked for blanking [30] the Leon Mobley article

By my count, that makes fourteen warnings and three blocks in less than 100 days. Considering all of your disruptive behavior, how are you not a threat to the project? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks? Arthurian Legend (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shinerunner (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

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) 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

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) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in adopting you. Just let me know. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This soundbite has been deleted. Please come to the talk page and see why, even if it was not deleted, it isn't considered approrpriate for the page. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I can see why you thought it relevant. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, so don't sweat it. Your contributions to the page and the patience you have demonstrated indicates to me that you will be a valuable editor. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the article's rating from "Start" to "B". Typically, page editors don't make that evaulation but instead request an assessment, in this case, through the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. If in fact you went through these procedures and made the change as a member of the bio project, then I apologize. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you created Image:Morrisyoung.jpg entirely by yourself, can you tell me what type of camera and film you used, to the best of your recollection, at that photo shoot? I'm concerned that the image might not be properly tagged. —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollicord d8....Why the sarcasm?

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is copied from a previous wp entry? How can a list be copyrighted?

A file that you uploaded or altered,