Hello, FourteenClowns, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Aloha! --Ali'i20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 2008 Open Championship, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
A tag has been placed on Template:1980 Major Championships requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
That seemed to fail! I have created a new template that automatically writes the year: instead of creating new templates for 1979, 1978 etc., just use {{Golf Major Championships master|YEAR}}. Where I wrote YEAR, put the year. So by putting {{Golf Major Championships master|1979}} you get
A tag has been placed on Template:1981 Major Championships requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
it will work for any year. i'm sorry about the notices i keep automatically adding to your page, i'm going to change all the links right now then submit the old templates en mass for deletion so no annoying messages ;). ninety:one16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:2005OpenLogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:2001PGALogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Interstate 64, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Millbrooky (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for edit-warring against consensus, and falsely calling the edits of others "vandalism", when you knew full well that isn't true. Enigmamsg15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell am I blocked? You guys are edit-warring as much as me and this is over something trivial. I believe he's a Knick. You don't. It doesn't warrant a block. Lets come up with a compromise. Jeez --FourteenClowns (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks English teacher. Lets come up with a compromise here. You don't have to block people just to get your way. I'm only editing something I believe in. I'm not blatantly putting false information down. --FourteenClowns (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edits shouldn't be based on what you "believe in". They should be based on verifiability. We know that Amar'e will sign with the Knicks. That means he hasn't signed with the Knicks yet. Which means he's not yet a Knick. No belief required. Mosmof15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A)You've been edit-warring across multiple pages, despite being told why your edits do not comply with Wikipedia policy. B)You've been calling constructive edits "vandalism", when they clearly aren't. C)You've been vandalizing yourself. See the above sections. Hopefully you'll stop when the block expires. Enigmamsg15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are vandalism to me and you got to have something better to do than guard these pages 24/7 until midnight tonight. That's the analism of you wikipedia nerds at its finest. Amar'e is a Knick. We all know it. So the fact your waiting to the strike of midnight is just stupid. There are actual vandals out there writing lies all over wikipedia. You guys getting hung up on a technicality is too anal. He's a Knick. We all know it. Do something more constructive with your time! --FourteenClowns (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Do something more constructive with your time!" I would say the same to you. You can call everyone else nerds and all kinds of other names. But stop and think about what that makes you. Enigmamsg17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one watching the page 24/7 based on a technicality. I'm merely updating the page to reflect the obvious. All my edits will be back in place at 12:01am tonight, and had you all allowed them when Amar'e proclaimed the "Knicks were back" things would have been alot easier. No one is going to come on Wikipedia and then to the Amar'e Stoudemire page and raise hell because Amar'e isn't technically allowed to sign to tomorrow. People know he's a Knick and they expect to see that. So yes, you are all nerds for making life difficult and sitting by the computer til midnight tonight making sure it doesn't change. --FourteenClowns (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious is that he's stated his intent to sign with the Knicks. If I say, "I'm going to Vegas!", that means something different from "I'm in Vegas".
Also, it's doubtful that he'll sign right his contract right on the dot at midnight tonight, so you don't have to worry about editing the article then. We can wait till he puts pen to paper and actually becomes a Knick.
Finally, Wikipedia is not a news service. Its concern is about things that have already happened, and there's no rush to get the latest information out as it comes out. In Amare's case, the Knicks signing will happen, but hasn't happened yet. What has happened is the agreement to sign, so that belongs in the article, but we can wait until he's actually a Knick before we declare him a Knick. Mosmof (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. And if people protecting the accuracy of Wikipedia are "nerds", I again have to wonder what that makes people who constantly edit war on Wikipedia and devote hours of their time to fight with others and insult them. I am not watching the article for 24 hours. Thankfully, I don't have to. I will, however, be watching you, Mr. Clown. Enigmamsg18:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example Mosmof. Amar'e was in Vegas. He was at MSG with a Knicks hat on proclaiming NY is back. And you are a nerd, Enigma. Face it. I get more tail this month than you get in your lifetime :). --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good one, so lets just unblock me and call a truce. This wasn't vandalism. It was a matter of opinion. If I do something you don't like after this truce you can ban me further. I will respect the consensus even though it's wrong, haha. --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you took me off guard. I've been a good user. Look at my contribs to the golf pages on Wiki. I edited in a famous YouTuber on one page and got a note saying he was non-notable. That was a matter of opinion, not vandalism. Same here. Lets bury the hatchett. I apologize for my response. I was just ticked off you'd block me based on something that's trivial opposed to vandalism. And you do have the power to block me again should I do something out of line. I assume you'll be following my contribs for awhile. --FourteenClowns (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll unblock you. In the future, please refrain from edit-warring and calling people "nerds" and various other negative names, regardless of how much you disagree with them. Please remember that you don't know anything about other Wikipedia users. I might be a chimp that got loose at a zoo and managed to find a computer, I might be an 80 year old woman, I could be a 12 year old, or I could be a middle aged accountant editing Wikipedia in his spare time. There's no way of knowing. Enigmamsg01:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started with the chimp as a joke; an attempt to lighten the mood. As you've probably guessed, I am indeed human. Anyway, you must be autoblocked, so you'll have to follow these instructions. Your account is not blocked at the moment. See here for proof. That's your block log. Enigmamsg01:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chuckled a little. Although, monkeys do like the Knicks. I'm a Bulls fan. I'll give those instructions a whirl.
No, you have to fill in your IP address. Currently you have ... listed there. If you want to save time, go to whatismyip.net, copy the IP listed there, and paste it here. I'll unblock that IP and you'll be good to go. Enigmamsg01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about all the trouble. You might've read it at the autoblock page, but basically when an account is blocked, the underlying IP gets autoblocked as well to prevent block evasion. So if an account is unblocked within 24 hours or so of the original block, the previously blocked user still has to go through the autoblock process so an admin can unblock the IP. A regular admin like myself cannot see your IP, so you end up having to post it. Cheers, Enigmamsg01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I follow basketball pretty closely. During the NBA and college seasons, I watch about five games a week. Obviously more during the tournament and playoffs. Enigmamsg01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(A not so) quick note - I noticed your edit summaries suggesting that free agent signing becoming official at midnight. That is not the case. It just means they can start signing and making official announcements about terms of contracts. Actual signings may not happen for days, depending on travel schedules and physicals. And keep in mind that players can fail physicals (Robert Traylor is the one player who comes to mind). Plus, the Wade and Bosh signings will probably So please don't declare signings official until, you know, they've actually signed and made things official. Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if you read that edit, I didn't proclaim Bosh a member of the Heat. I only expanded the section that was already there by adding the nugget of Bosh saying he will join the Heat along with Wade in an interview on ESPN. That revertion is a bit much man. --FourteenClowns (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the revert was made by Muboshgu, not Mosmof. I agree that it shouldn't have been reverted. Maybe he thought you were putting in the same stuff as before. Enigmamsg03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just hope people would read the change before reverting. I'm not going to put anyone on their new team until its official. The physical is a good point there. I would think these teams did their homework already, but yes, you never know. Tractor Trailor was a bust! haha... --FourteenClowns (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry Hills was a par 71, as it always has been for Men's major championships. You got the scoring wrong by calculating the course as a par 72.- William15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was because your re aligning things your way, this is Wikipedia, not Unencylopedia. Please don't do stupid things like that again unless you want me to bring it to the Moderators attention.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are going by the present, not what you "think" it might look like in the future. No one made me the king of anything. :\ But if you asked anyone else, that would be Vandalism, now please don't contact me anymore.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Boston.com source, "Jim Salisbury of CSNPhilly.com is reporting the Phillies have an agreement with closer Jonathan Papelbon pending a physical." As players do fail physicals from time to time, we do not declare things to be finalized when they are not finalized. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all take physicals. And if we wait till every t is crossed and i is dotted it technically isn't officially in stone for another month or two. I know for a fact Wiki changes things before that. --FourteenClowns (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:FourteenClowns, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.
You've been blocked for name-calling before, and now you've done it again. The remarks you made above to Muboshgu are unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Jonathan Papelbon. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. TM20:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Albert Pujols shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please gain consensus on when his contract is considered official before inserting the same text again. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for your involvement in an edit war at Albert Pujols, as well as highly inappropriate behavior during the exchange (accusing other editors of "trolling", and borderline vandalism by attempting to slip "I Love L.A." into an article section header.) Given the fact that you've been warned for this multiple times and the misbehavior besides the edit war, the block will be for a week. If you would like to request that another administrator review this decision, you may place the {{unblock|Your reason here}} template on this page, replacing "Your reason here" with the reason for requesting a review. If you choose to do so, you may wish to review the guide to appealing a block before you do. Please remember in the future to remain civil, to discuss disputes on an article's talk page, and to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring if you cannot come to an agreement with other editors. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:04, 9 December 2011 (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).
I make constructive edits. I had several sources that validate my case for Albert Pujols being put on the Angels. There are several users here that just delete your edits without giving you a reason why or throw some Wiki jargon at you that only those who live on the site understand. We are a collective unit. All I'm trying to do is contribute and I get shot down by people who I feel think own the site. It's kind of clickish to be honest. Like high school all over again. Of course no one is going to scold them though when they are friends with all the moderators and admins. It really isn't fair. If you don't unblock me at the very least allow me to write the Wiki founder something. I'm sure this kind of tyrannical behavior by several people is not what he intended.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for edit warring; again. I see no indication from the message above that you have taken any time to read the policies you have been referred to, nor do I see any indication you will cease the problematic behavior. You are free to e-mail whoever you like. Kuru(talk)02:51, 10 December 2011 (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.
I fixed your unblock template by removing the "tlx|" from the front. I used that in my message so that it wouldn't actually pop up an unblock template, just show you which to use. Now that it's fixed, someone will see it and be along to review. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kuru, I've been backed by many of your cohorts for having credible sources. How come the other uses who reverted my edits weren't blocked for edit warring? They revert hundreds of edits a day without having a group discussion on whether the user's sources are credible. You are making the wrong decision here. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2011 (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).
Challenging Kuru's ruling. The users who revert my edits should speak to me like a human being and get off their soapboxes. My edits were backed by several users so those who warred with me should be blocked as well if I'm not unblocked. FourteenClowns (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Decline because you have not said how you will change your behavior if you are unblocked. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to indicate how you would behave differently to avoid being blocked for the same offense. Jayron3205:24, 10 December 2011 (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.
Jayron, the whole style of Wikipedia needs to change! Someone simply reverting my edits and not saying why or providing Wiki jargon that only those who live on the site understand is wrong. The site doesn't belong to them. How come they never get blocked for edit warring? If those wish to speak to me as an equal, I will be nicer. But it's hard not to get mad when people just revert your edits and treat you as an outsider. It's not what the founder of Wiki would have intended. This is a group effort. Not those who choose to live on the site. Of course I'm speaking to deaf ears because you are going to back your buddies who also live on the site. There's no place for the little guy here. --FourteenClowns (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (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).
Please unblock my dad, Airtuna08. I'm nothing more than a punk kid who gets bored and likes to get into trouble. It's so easy to mess with Wiki since it is so public. So every now and then I will check my dad's contribs and mess with some of the admins he vents about once and awhile. Anyway, he's innocent of all wrong doing here. He is pretty beaten up about it too. I see how hard he works on certain topics whether it's writing stuff or gathering images. I'm sorry and ask you to reinstate him and delete my account accordingly. I understand consquences should this happen again. You have my word that it won't bc I know it would eliminate any chance of my dad returning. Thanks and please consider this. Pass it along to the admin who blocked my dad. --FourteenClowns (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Your "dad" already had the benefit of the doubt from us before - and one time is more than enough. We don't care if you're all sockpuppets or meatpuppets - if there's disruption, all accounts get blocked, period. Max Semenik (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Response - Max, when is the last time you saw female gentila? -FourteenClowns (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2012 (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.
My uncle and I used to like to mess with this all the time. We made all those user accounts to f*ck with the site. Those links are to my or my uncle's comments. Not his. My dad is clean. --FourteenClowns (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the appeal of Airtuna08 (talk·contribs) and has declined to unblock that account and related accounts either known or discovered during the investigation. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}