User talk:Ral539

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I just gave you a final warning to stop reverting edits/edit warring without any explanation, and yet you've continued to do so. You've been blocked for this sort of behavior before, so this ones for longer. When you come back, discuss things on the talk page, don't just edit war without edit summaries. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLANKING, you are not permitted to remove active block notices from your talk page, as you did with this edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ral539, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for using another account to edit through this account's block, in violation of the relevant policy. I am simply resetting the duration of your current block to 30 days. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RvBSeason11.jpg. 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) 02:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jackass Presents: Mat Hoffman's Tribute to Evel Knievel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page is solely sourced to Fandango (which I assume is unreliable), IMDb (which I know is), and a dead Rotten Tomatoes link (archived here but no critics). The only trace of potential, unconfirmed, reliable coverage I found was from this archived newspaper which says briefly that their website has a review of the special. I couldn't find that, but even if it is out there then that's just one reliable source which isn't enough for a GNG pass. And since I didn't find anything beyond that, here we are.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]