User talk:MasterEditor99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MasterEditor99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Greenbank crescent

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Greenbank crescent, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Neddy

I have reverted your change to Hurricane Neddy, you removed perfectly good content for no good reason. Also, is there a reason why you copied the barnstars from User:Scorpion0422? And then just replaced the names? Gran2 10:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:100 0015.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:100 0015.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:100 0015.jpg

I have added a copyright tag to the image on your behalf as per your edit to declare you created the image. Thatguy69talk 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Tauntons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tauntons.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Red nose riot

A tag has been placed on Red nose riot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandals on your user page

I Revert(undid) the vandalism he cause Arnon Chaffin 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1 thing

don't forget to sign your name with the 4 titles Arnon Chaffin 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Me260.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Me999.jpg. The copy called Image:Me999.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Caution: Vandalism on User talk:Krauser415. using TW

May 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Krauser415. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Waggers 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanking an editor's user page will put you on the fast track for getting blocked. Please don't do it again. Rklawton 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jagzthebest". The reason given for Jagzthebest's block is: "Vandalism". For more information click here.

  • Decline reason:

The autoblock will eventually expire. In the meantime, please read up on WP:5P. Any more nonsense from either of you will likely get you blocked indefinitely. — Sandstein 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i am a sperate account from Jagzthebest. It wasnt me. So effectively i am innocent. If u would unblock me plz. thnx MasterEditor99 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But this is you: [1], [2], [3] - so I've given you some time to think about appropriate behavior here at Wikipedia. Rklawton 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK

Ok right me and User:Jagzthebest are tottaly seperate people and are not the same account. i think that if u check his I.P you will find that his older edits have a different I.P. i think you have your facts wrong here and therfore i request an unblock.

I think it's clear both accounts are one and the same. Same editing times; same poor grammar; same IP address; similar vandalism. Even if you aren't the same person, you both deserve to be blocked. However, feel free to take the matter up with another administrator if you like. Rklawton 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe i will

can i just ask why i deserve to be blocked? i have done no vandalism what so ever except to user:Jagzthebest but that was revenge. i understand ow that i should not have done that. i think you will find that the accounts are not the same however i do not know how to prove that to you.


Another Thing

basically me and him are students that go to Cantell School. we are very good freinds and we both apoligise for our actions. The reason for editing times is that we are both sitting right next to each other and we are both logging in to our accounts. i personally understand that wikipedia is no freinds site. The reasons for our actions to each others pages because we had disagreements. We have now however sorted this out. As you can see from our contribs we have made good ones and therefore we would ask for you to unblock us. thanks MasterEditor99 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have made some good edits in the midst of vandalizing each others pages and a few articles is why I haven't indefinitaly blocked this account. Given your edit history, I recommend finding something else to do with your time for awhile. Rklawton 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

c o t b

could you perhaps tell me an instance of vandalism i have done to apart from user:jagzthebest. thanks MasterEditor99 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already done that above. Rklawton 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ok

the st marys i do not consider as vandalism however if it is then it was ignorance by me. I have xplained the vandalism on user:jagzthebest profile. Perhaps you are right and i do need a break as i can see that i am not going to win this argument. MasterEditor99 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent assessment

Your recent WikiProject Schools assessment of Cantell Secondary School has been contested and changed; please see the talk page of that article for details. Thank you for your contributions, if you wish to assess more school articles please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment. Camaron1 | Chris 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cantell Secondary School

You asked why I reverted your edit. This comparison should show you why: you removed the image from the infobox and replaced it with a link to something that does not exist, thus spoiling the page. FJPB 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "at the time it did exist." Maybe it did then, but by the time I saw the page it didn't. It was deleted at 4 a.m., as you can see here, because it hadn't been uploaded with the correct permissions. And in any case, you got the syntax wrong in the infobox, so the image wouldn't have displayed properly. FJPB 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "i did get it right at one stage but i accidentaly pressed back.". OK, but none of the edits you made produced a valid page. Maybe you should look a bit more closely at what's there to begin with, before making changes. Before doing a "Save page" use the "Show preview" button. And try to understand how it all works. If you want to help improve Wikipedia, you'll be most welcome, but please try harder to get the details right: they're important.

What was that JPEG image, anyway? If it was just a JPEG version of the GIF that's there now, then the change was hardly worth the trouble. If the school has a new logo, then before uploading it you need to read up on the rules, here, especially about copyright status; and once it's uploaded, get the syntax right when changing the infobox. If you make changes that spoil pages, you really shouldn't be too surprised if they get interpreted as vandalism. FJPB 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "it was a different image and i did place the school logo below however the link did not work so i fiddled around however it didnt work so i deleted it." I think that rather makes my point. If you had used "Show preview", you would have seen that it wasn't working without making real changes to the page (and raising suspicions that you were vandalising it).

There's lots of useful information on how to go about editing Wikipedia. Please read it before you next make changes.

Isn't it past your bedtime, anyway? It is mine. Goodnight! FJPB 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tauntons.jpg

What is the source for this image? If you don't provide a source (as required), I will delete this image. Rklawton 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing Comments

Please do not change other editors' comments on AfD pages as you did here. If you do this again you will be blocked. -- Necrothesp 10:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaghetti Westerns or WikiProject Westerns

I'm thinking about a new project WikiProject Westerns or WikiProject Spaghetti Westerns dedicated to westerns. Interested? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


ok but look at the comment i left on your talk page. it mentions that i wasnt sure about the blcok notice. im sorry for any inconvience caused and i myself feel that i have done nothing wrong MasterEditor99 18:21, 31 May 2007 (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: "i am not a sock puppet of user:jagzthebest and am a completely differnet person. look at both our contribs and you will see that we have both wrongly vandalised each others user pages and we both make edits to different things as wel as having different I.P adresses. I have done nothing wrong"

Decline reason: "If you aren't a sockpuppet of Jagzthebest, then why were you autoblocked for having the same IP address? --  Netsnipe  ►  16:02, 6 June 2007 (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: "good point but explainable. outside of wikipedia we know each other and he was on the same computer as me and he made a disruptive edit and becasue we were sharing the same I.P i was autoblocked"

Decline reason: "And you didn't think to tell us this before directly challenged? --pgk 18:50, 6 June 2007 (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 didnt tell you because thats why i was blocked last time and not this time. ok what happend this time i am unsure of, i return to wikipedia and i find that i am blocked after doing no vandalism and apperntly i have been accused of being a sockpuppet which i am not."

Decline reason: "Not credible. Also {{usernameblock}}. Talk page protected. — Sandstein 21:24, 7 June 2007 (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 page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent MasterEditor99 (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

hey

another 99er! AUS99 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)