User talk:Adrionwells

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Adrionwells, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Talk:Fundamental theorem of calculus. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Dynaflow babble 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song and Dance Man & Billboard[edit]

Hi Adrionwells, You introduced the phrase "song and dance man" into first sentence of Bob Dylan article, and I can understand why. I'm away from home now & don't have access to my Dylan interview books but I think Dylan described himself this way in a 1964 interview. This became the title of Michael Gray's multi-edition critical study, currently Song & Dance Man III: The Art Of Bob Dylan. But you gave as a ref/cit the IMDb page on Dont Look Back which doesn't use this phrase. I think if this phrase is used, article should explain that it is Dylan's (perhaps ironic) description of his own art. But as lead sentence, it raises queries.

I'm puzzled that you deleted the mention of Dylan's Christmas album. Billboard has confirmed [1] that this album is forthcoming. In terms of record industry, surely Billboard is a WP:RS? best wishes Mick gold (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jack Furlong[edit]

A tag has been placed on Jack Furlong requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jack Furlong, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Jack Furlong was changed by Adrionwells (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-11-11T00:32:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Jack Furlong. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Jusda fax 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Jack furlong6.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Jack furlong6.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This applies as well to the other Jack Furlong images you've uploaded. --dave pape (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jack Furlong[edit]

A tag has been placed on Jack Furlong requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Jack furlong.jpeg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Jack furlong.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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. dave pape (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Daniel Tosh. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evading a block explained at 71.188.115.27 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#71.188.115.27_and_9.2F11_sanctions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you're the same person. The only differences in behavior between each account only comes up only after similarities are pointed out, and yet you continue to go on about "I'm not advocating the theory, but mainstream sources are clearly wrong and these totally-not-conspiracy-theorists are on to something." Ian.thomson (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock| I would like to have this reviewed by an unbiased admin. I've had the same few admins reviewing this block, and they are clearly biased on this issue to the point that they are unable to distinguish my attempt to improve the article with an attempt to promote fringe theories. If you look at the conversation you will see that my comments were constructive. }

This account has had no previous blocks, and no other admin reviewed it before you posted your first appeal. Ergo, when you say "I've had the same few admins reviewing this block," you are admitting that you are 71.188.115.27. The block was per a community consensus here -- you, as a person, are not welcome on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Suddenly you are capable of critical thinking. Weird. User Ian.thomson has been rude and ignorant from the start. I would like a higher level admin to review the situation and see that my edits (mostly just on the talk page) are in good faith whether or not I'm right. This lack of professionalism and intellectual rigor gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2017 (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.

Talk page access revoked. Other admins will review your blocks. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]