User talk:Mwrcwms

Thanks for uploading File:Sister Evelyn Mattern .jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jeanette Stokes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GLG GLG (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Kennedy Meeks  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ... discospinster _talk 19:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that Meeks wants the picture taken down? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the image did he not like? Also, there are several other images on Wikimedia Commons that can be used instead. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. There was only one other image of him that I could find, and it wasn't a very high quality version. Of course, if you know Meeks, you could take a picture of him and upload it to Wikipedia. A more recent picture would be more preferable anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mwrcwms. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kennedy Meeks, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 14:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing appropriate content from articles. The subject of the article does not get to dictate what's in it. ... discospinster _talk 14:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kennedy Meeks with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 14:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Kennedy Meeks with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kennedy Meeks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ Rob^Talk 15:33, 9 July 2015 (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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am writing because I have been blocked from Wikipedia. I began editing for Wikipedia before fully understanding the complexity of the rules. I was blocked for using a picture that does not follow Wikipedia's copyright rules, for engaging in an "edit war," for having multiple accounts (which I now understand is against the rules and called sockpuppeting). Again, I am hoping to edit and create Wikipedia pages and will work to understand the Wikipedia rules. Thank you Mwrcwms (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Mwrcwms[reply]

Decline reason:

No answer to question from Bagumba (below) after twelve days. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 26 July 2015 (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.

As also discussed at the ongoing unblock request for one of the related suspected socks at User talk:Stokesnet, you may also want to specifically address the concerns described at WP:COWORKER in your request.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am writing because I was blocked from Wikipedia about a year ago. I began editing for Wikipedia before fully understanding the complexity of the rules. I was blocked for using a picture that does not follow Wikipedia's copyright rules, for engaging in an edit war, for having multiple accounts (which I now understand is against the rules). I am requesting that I be unblocked from Wikipedia and that an administrator delete my second account (Mollyw838). I was not aware that it was against the rules to have multiple accounts. Additionally, I will not revert an edit made by someone else and will work to understand why the edit was made instead. I wish to lawfully edit Wikipedia pages, and I have spent the last year learning about and reading the editing rules. Again, I am hoping to edit and create Wikipedia pages and will work harder to understand and follow the Wikipedia rules. Thank you! Mwrcwms (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Be sure to follow WP:SOCK. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you need any clarification. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't answered the question posted above by Bagumba. Maybe you didn't understand it. Last year, it was confirmed that several other user accounts were operated from the same computer as this account. Another account (Stokesnet) posted an unblock request in May claiming he several persons were editing from the same computer (see: User_talk:Stokesnet#Moving_forward). We want you to comment the situation. Is it true? Are you a coworker of Stokesnet, or is that you operating that account too? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Vanjagenije, thank you for your question and for explaining what you mean. I am a coworker of Stokesnet (she), and we did not understand the rules against collaboration amongst coworkers. We are aware now, and we will be sure to follow this rule closely. Again, I wish to write and edit wikipedia pages while following all of the rules. Thank you. Mwrcwms (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If I were to unblock you today - what articles do you intend to edit? SQL^{Query me!} 05:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SQL There are no specific articles I would like to edit at this time, but I would like to be able to edit and write for Wiki in the future. Mwrcwms (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Checkuser needed}}. In May, Stokesnet claimed that connected editors have "moved to other parts of the country and the world". Can a CheckUser confirm that this account and Stokesnet are not technically connected any more? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I take any action, Vanjagenije, did I consent to Yamla unblocking Stokesnet?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Bbb23: I don't know. I don't see any such consent. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I responded on Bbb23's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at Stokesnet and Mwrcms now, the two accounts are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          @Bbb23: So, it seems to me that the editor is honest. Can I unblock? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          @Vanjagenije: Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          • @Vanjagenije: and @Bbb23: thank you for agreeing to unblock me. Have you unblocked me yet? It appears I am still blocked. Mwrcwms (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Vanjagenije: and @Bbb23: Nevermind, I am now unblocked. I was a little confused because my User page still says blocked indefinitely, but I am no longer blocked. Thank you Mwrcwms (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Vanjagenije. The account Stokesnet and I are not connected any more, and we are living in different parts of the world. If a CheckUser can confirm this, will I be unblocked? Mwrcwms (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]