User talk:Nevandc98

April 2011

Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Hannah Montana (season 4). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. 117Avenue (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Image I put on Hannah Montana(Season 4) was the appropriate one, the one that was there was the one for the DVD, NOT the series User:Nevandc98

Hannah Montana (season 4) is on the television season, thus has an image of the season's DVD cover, a CD cover wouldn't make sense. 117Avenue (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hannah Montana Forever.png is an image of the CD cover for the soundtrack, not for the television season itself. By convention, we use the DVD cover art for season articles when it is available. Use of non-free images requires a non-free use rationale for each use, as is required by our policy on non-free content and there is no rationale to use File:Hannah Montana Forever.png in Hannah Montana (season 4). --AussieLegend (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Image I put doesn't indicate it is a CD cover, and it is clear the DVD cover u put there IS a DVD cover, and the logo should be the biggest part of the picture, unlike the DVD Cover.

The image you attempted to change to does note that it's the cover of the CD—it bears a non-free album cover rationale. The image in the infobox should be representative of the show. That usually means a intertitle image or a DVD cover. Since we don't have a screenshot of the HM logo from Disney, the DVD cover is the next best option. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get the official HM Forever logo?

Sonny with a Chance

Why don't you pay attention to the reasons your edits keep getting reverted? The convention is to refer to shows by the name it has had for the longest period of time. In the case of Sonny with a Chance, that's "Sonny with a Chance", and will be until season 5. Don't just force your changes in: that's called "edit warring", and will result in you getting blocked.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The show's name has Officialy been changed, and no other shows had to wait to change the article's name, for example Jonas L.A. the first season, which was 21 episodes, was called just JONAS, but when the season 2 came out, titled JONAS L.A., the article's name, and format was updated. - nevandc98

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sonny with a Chance, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above, the convention is to refer to shows by the name they've had for the longest period of time. In Sonny with a Chance's case, two seasons of Sonny with a Chance have aired while no episodes of "So Random!" have aired and you haven't provided a single citation in support of the claims that you made in these edits. As for your comparison with Jonas/Jonas L.A, Let me throw Extreme Engineering at you. In season 6 its name was changed to Build It Bigger but the article name didn't change because of the convention. The same is true for Hannah Montana, the fourth season of which has been heavily promoted and marketed as "Hannah Montana Forever". Your edits have been reverted several times now, please don't continue to edit-war over this. If you think a change should be made, discuss it on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sonny with a Chance. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AussieLegend (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I DIDN'T VANDALIZE DAMN IT!! I UPDATED IT!! U PEOPLE DON'T WATCH HALF AS MUCH DISNEY CHANNEL AS I DO, OR SEARCH AS MUCH AS I DO, SO DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT YOUR RIGHT!! I will however change the page name back to Sonny With a Chance, just because So Random! hasn't aired yet, but the minute it Disney Channel announces So Random!, I'm changing it to So Random! - nevandc98

The changes that you've made in these edits are completely unsourced and, since this is content that has earlier been removed by Kww and I, constitutes your fourth revert for the day, meaning that you have now breached the three-revert rule and can be blocked at any time. Howver, if you choose to revert your edits, you may escape a block. You may not, but it can't hurt. Since your edits also inexplicably removed a citation, resulting in apparently random comment being added to the infobox, reversion would be wise, as it would return the article to a stable version. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Jessie (TV series). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit-warring at Sonny with a Chance

As the result of your continued edit-warring at Sonny with a Chance I have now reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as you have now breached the three-revert rule again by making a fifth revert in less than 14 hours. Had you not made this edit I was willing to to let this slide, as another editor had already reverted your fourth revert. However, it seems clear that you are not willing to stop editing unconstructively and refuse to accept that your unsourced edits that have damaged the article are not acceptable so the report now seems necessary. You may wish to comment in the discussion which may be found here. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U are in a battle you can't win, I know a lot more on the topic of Disney Chanel then most users on Wikipedia, I don't need "sources", you watch DC for 5 minutes and you know that what I put there is correct. Also, search my info, it's all true! - Nevandc98

Just to point out that while your current block is only for 24 hours, if you resume that edit war, the next one will be permanent.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and it doesn't matter how much you think you are correct if you can't edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... for only 24 hours...

April 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Disney Channel. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AussieLegend (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing your block to seven days

Hi there. I am increasing your block to seven days to prevent imminent and continuing damage. Your non-recognition of the issues because of which you have been blocked is the primary reason for this. The increase of this block is intended to ensure that you are immediately deterred from your present, disruptive behavior. I advise and encourage you to immediately utilize a more productive and congenial editing style that goes with our community norms. Kindly read Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is a pillar of Wikipedia. This mentions that it is not the truth that matters when you try to add information to articles, but the fact whether the information is backed up by reliable sources. Given your clear non-recognition of this issue, I am undertaking the preventative step of increasing your block. Should you step back right now, recognize your mistakes, and accept to read up on all of Wikipedia's editing pillars, your block could be immediately reduced by me or any other administrator (follow the instructions for placing your unblock request, listed above). Otherwise, the block stays for one week this time. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, until I am unblocked, and u people realize you we're wrong, I will not be using Wikipedia AT ALL anymore, and I will see to it that no one I know (family, friends, community) will use it either. - Nevandc98

I wish you the best in your endeavors. Take care. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked and extended to two 2 weeks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nevandc98. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]