User talk:Manadude2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
  • Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Mayalld (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Expanding it

A tag has been placed on Expanding it, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Manadude2 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Expanding it has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Expanding it constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Blundering on

You seem intent on just doing your thing regardless of advice.

Please stop!

You are already on a level-3 warning (deleting the warnings doesn't change that), and at present it is taking as much effort to fix what you are doing as you are putting into it yourself.

Please pay particular attention to the following points;

  1. Don't link to disambiguation pages. link to [[Hope Valley, Derbyshire|Hope Valley]] rather than [[Hope Valley]]
  2. Don't add horizontal rules at random
  3. Don't add tenuous links on disambiguation pages
  4. Add sources to articles you write.

Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Expanding it, you will be blocked from editing. Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Mayalld, you will be blocked from editing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Mayalld, you will be blocked from editing. It is NOT vandalism to leave you a message on your talk page pointing out that you are failing to comply with policy Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

Might I suggest that you take a deep breath, and re-evaluate what is happening here!

The vast majority of your edits are being reverted or deleted, because they break the rules. Shouting at me on my talk page won't change that. Reading up on policy, and how to edit constructively will.

If you choose to see it as a battle, and fight on, you will undoubtedly be blocked from editing. Mayalld (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Birchinlee. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Birchinlee. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Birchinlee, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. Mayalld (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shatton

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shatton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Shatton. Mayalld (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. ScarianCall me Pat 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "They are being unfair. i am editing wikipedia with my general knowledge of the area, why can they block me for that?? It shouldnt be allowed"

Decline reason: "We have explained why your contributions are inappropriate. See the numerous links to our policies and guidelines on this page. — Yamla (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:Manadude2, you will be blocked from editing. You can't unblock yourself, and putting an admin template on your own talk page claiming to have been unblocked is likely to get you an even longer block Mayalld (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "you cant leave me alone can you?? i am just editing it with my general knowledge, about the web link, i got the address wrong. what is wrong with you lot?and usertalk:manadude2 is my own page"

Decline reason: "The unblock template is to be used to request an unblock. It is not for general conversations. And please see WP:OWN. — Yamla (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "i havent vandelised and i have been wrongly accused"

Decline reason: "Can you explain this edit then: [1]... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Your editing

  • I (and others) repeatedly tried to advise you that your editing was not in compliance with Wikipedia policy.
  • I (and others) repeatedly tried to make you aware of the fact that continuing to flout policy would get you blocked.
  • You decided to ignore that advice, and ignore policy.
  • You decided to vandalise tags that had been placed on a page raising a legitimate concern about that page.

Wikipedia policy is simple. We require verifiability of facts inserted into articles, from reliable sources, such that another editor can check anything you added and be assured that it is factually correct. If the only source you can put forward is "local knowledge", it is impossible for anybody to check.

Indeed, at least one of the "facts" that you added more than ones (namely that Calver is known as Calver Sough) is actually false (and yes, I can provide sources to back that up). Calver Sough is a small part of Calver, not an alternate name for the whole village.

You may think that it's a silly policy, but it is a policy, and Wikipedia only works when everybody plays by the same rules. It is not an anarchy where some people can decide to write their own rules. Ultimately, if people refuse to play by the rules, they aren't allowed to play at all.

Whilst all this was going on, you made no effort to engage with the people who were warning you. Did you believe that simply ignoring/deleting the warnings would result in you being allowed to do it your own way?

So, the block has served a useful purpose. It has meant that the only thing you can do is talk here. Perhaps you will take the comments on board, and come back tomorrow ready to play by the rules. If so, all well and good. Perhaps you will come back tomorrow and decide that you know best and continue to edit as you did today. If so, you may expect a longer block.

Mayalld (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "my little brother did that. hes so annoying."

Decline reason: "Heh, little brothers can be that for sure! I suggest using the 24 hours to review a few of our policies, and get acquainted with a better password for your account. — Jmlk17 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as you did to Bamford Church. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bamford Church do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as you did to Bamford Church. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bamford. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. What on earth are you playing at adding a {{main}} tag that points back to the same article? Mayalld (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bam.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bam.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) --Mayalld (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to :Image:Bam.JPG. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to William Shakespeare

Please help other editors by providing edit summaries with your edits. Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Bam.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:Bam.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Act 1, Scene 5 of Romeo & Juliet

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Act 1, Scene 5 of Romeo & Juliet, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Act 1, Scene 5 of Romeo & Juliet. Malkinann (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Act 1, Scene 5 of "Romeo & Juliet"

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Act 1, Scene 5 of "Romeo & Juliet" meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Act 1, Scene 5 of "Romeo & Juliet". Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Malkinann (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Mark Speight

This image has no copyright information so must be at best fair-use. As such, it's not allowed in an infobox. Thanks --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous page requested a copyright-free image. The one you put there isn't free of copyright, you got it off a website. As such, unless you can put a defensible fair-use rationale on the image page, it will be deleted within seven days. And even a fair-use image is not permitted in an infobox. Please have a look at policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important note!

In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. --Haemo (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)