User talk:HowAboutNo91

Cool categories

I am impressed by your observation of the value of consolidating notable athletes who are also criminals in various sports. I have created some more subcategories of Category:American athletes convicted of crimes. I would like to create one for pro wrestlers if it gets big enough but am not sure what to call it yet so I am just putting them in the main category.

Once they go in a subcategory we would remove them from the main category. Ranze (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello HowAboutNo91, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Aundre Bumgardner has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect information

In the article, List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, you need to demonstrate how the information is incorrect; otherwise, you will continue to be reverted by various editors. Hmains (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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.

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).

HowAboutNo91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please can I be unblocked. For months I have been adding sourced and correct information to hundreds of articles, indeed I have even been creating articles to make wikipedia better, yet because of a few mistakes from about 4/5 years ago, I am once again blocked. We all make mistakes and made mine years ago, whereas now I make sure everything is up to a wikipedia standard with the correct sources, information and data. If you look at my recent edits, you shall see that I have been making articles better by adding more information to them. I just want to edit the articles that I am interested in and I don't vandalise or make a mess of articles. I have worked so hard on wikipedia to make articles better and from my edits, you shall see that that is true. I admit that when I was a new editor I made mistakes but this is 4 years later and I would like to be given a chance to show everyone that I am a good wikipedia editor. Please also could the editor JamesBWatson allow my edits to stand as I worked so hard over the past year to make sure that the articles I was working on were accurate as I even attached sources to th edits which you have now reverted. I'm begging you, even if my unblock is unsuccessful, please dont remove all the hours of work I put into the articles. Indeed because of these articles being reverted there is now alot of incorrect information on many articles, people and candidates have been deleted from elections, images have been added that aren't the person in question, people who have been jailed are no longer in jail, people who are dead are now alive again and some even have serious vandalism on their pages which I had deleted. HowAboutNo91 (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not address the reason for your block, which is sockpuppetry; you will need to explain this in any future request. Also please explain why, when you were unblocked earlier this year to allow a username change, you made no attempt to make this change. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:28, 7 September 2016 (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.

Far from being a reformed editor, your community ban discussion talks about repeated copyright violations and the Wikipedia and copyright section above would suggest you still haven't learned about copyright. Mo ainm~Talk 12:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mention 'repeated copyright violations', they are from 2011, it is now 2016, so 5 years later and there is only one copyright violation on this account over months and months of editing, the article itself was allowed to stay as there was only a small violation. HowAboutNo91 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore I find it fascinating that you ~Talk haven't edited once since the 15th July 2016, yet all of a sudden, a few months later, you re-appear on wikipedia, the very day I ask to be unblocked and comment on my talk page. Methinks you might be a sock puppet yourself as how else would you have known about what I had put on my talk page, since you haven't edited in 2 months. HowAboutNo91 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not eligible for unblock consideration here (and likely not eligible on your master account until you have avoided editing for at least six months), I'm revoking talk page access here. You are welcome to request an unblock on your master account and/or using WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, HowAboutNo91. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]