User talk:AnimatedSitcomFan

Hi! I think it's great that you are interested in improving Wikipedia however you can. However, WP:Good article nominations/Instructions states that: "Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article [emphasis not mine] and be familiar with its subject and cited sources. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across." You have not edited this page once; in fact, you have performed just 11 WP:Mainspace edits in all your time here. If you nominate an article for review, you are expected to be familiar with the subject matter and respond to feedback to improve the article until it is of sufficient quality (here is an example of a review I just did on another user's article so you can get an idea of what to expect: Talk:Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I/GA1). While I hate quarrelling with or belittling anyone, especially new users who are just trying to help, a review of this article would most likely not be worth anyone's time or effort. I will allow you to read and respond to this, but then I hope you can agree it is best that you focus on nominating articles to which you have significantly contributed. Anonymous 01:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your reversion on Talk:Christopher Columbus. You don't appear to qualify to nominate the article, and I frankly don't think it's there at this time. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you just created the article Gavin Goniwicha, you should add text mentioning at least a claim of significance (preferably sourced), otherwise it risks being speedy deleted. An infobox isn't enough for a standalone article. Thanks! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StewieGriffin&EricCartman,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gavin Goniwicha for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added "original research". Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora has 2 of 3 platforms that have "mixed or average" reviews on Metacritic, so therefore the game received generally mixed reviews. There was no need to revert my edit. 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:8D0B:B146:CD23:1AEA (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry StewieGriffin&EricCartman (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Blue devil at Wallace Wade stadium.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Blue devil at Wallace Wade stadium.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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) 18:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing that because someone unilaterally added personal coat of arms for different people next to their links in her infobox, which is inconsistent with other royalty infoboxes. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry my bad StewieGriffin&EricCartman (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to why you added the banned user template here - is there a discussion somewhere that says they've been banned rather than just blocked for vandalism & disruptive edits?

On the template page, you'll see:

"It should not be used for normal blocks; rather, it is for accounts that have been banned after due consideration."

Frankly, I just don't understand why you'd be creating a user page for a user whose talk page hasn't been touched since October 2023 to add that template. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, however, that account was blocked indefinitely. I’ll just remove that template. Stewie&Cartman 02:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh someone removed it already. Stewie&Cartman 02:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like it's a pretty standard indefinite block for vandalism. I'm just more confused than anything by why you decide to pull up a random user page of someone blocked for months and tag them as a banned user after never having done so. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, sorry. I make mistakes in rare circumstances, as my intent is to revert vandalism and warn vandals. Stewie&Cartman 02:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sufficient explanation. Why that user? There is absolutely no reason I can see for you to be on that page. You also don't seem to understand the difference between WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. --Yamla (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand the difference between a block and ban on Wikipedia, a block is an action by administrators to prevent vandalism, while a ban is a formal prohibition from editing Wikipedia. Stewie&Cartman 14:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to change my signature. Stewie&Cartman 14:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, StewieGriffin&EricCartman, does not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy, which is summarized here.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

• To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
• If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page (this page): {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Requested username:

AnimatedSitcomFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am changing my username to this because I am very obsessed with animated sitcoms. However, according to my contributions, I mostly revert vandalism and warn vandals, I don’t intend to vandalize or start an edit war. Stewie&Cartman 14:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Renamed so unblocked. Please completely answer the question above prior to editing further. Yamla (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Yamla (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn’t the same owner of that account, however my contributions were mainly reverting vandalism and warning vandals on their talk page, I didn’t vandalize Wikipedia with this account. AnimatedSitcomFan (Chat) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:00, 3 March 2024 (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.