User talk:MJD86

Welcome!

Hello, MJD86, 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! Have week a nice week and god bless :) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seinfeld WikiProject Invite

Hey there. I couldn't help noticing you appear to be interested in Seinfeld. I am interested in setting up a Seinfeld WikiProject to improve articles related to Seinfeld. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If you are interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mahone

Whats with the edits on Alexander Mahone? Its kinda confusing me.Everyoneandeveryone (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made ONE edit. You made about two dozen edits on that page in the last hour. I readded huge block text you shouldn't have deleted. A few of your edits later you deleted it again. Then a few minutes later you readded all of of it piece by piece, each with it's own separate edit. So... whats with your edits on Alexander Mahone? Its kinda annoying me.MJD86 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahone again

WTF? I had to make alot of edits 'cuz u fucked up everything and it kept re-verting back again and again.Everyoneandeveryone (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay you made 12 edits before I got there and at that point everything was f'ed up. PS: There is a button called "Show preview". MJD86 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary

Your summary at this diff should indicate that, in addition to changing where one of the links point, you are also reintroducing disputed material. Croctotheface (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this and this. In both those cases, you were not actually undoing my edits. Do you somehow want to make it seem that I introduced nonstandard spelling or weird encoded notes? Edit summaries are permanent. If you have some issue with me, don't try to hurt my reputation by doing things like that. Croctotheface (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your Clark Gillies edit MJD86 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, but what about the Steve Blackman edit? I certainly have never made a reference to "pipz" in any of my editing. Also, even at the Gillies page, you didn't undo my edit, you standardized the spelling. Had you undone my edit, you'd have changed it back to the incorrect description where Gillies loses the fight. (Incidentally, "pummelling" is not incorrect, but I concede that it's nonstandard.) The bottom line here is that if you are trying to make me look bad by putting this kind of stuff in edit summaries, you need to stop. Croctotheface (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I Am a Clown

Instead of just reverting me, could you please respond to my arguments? Why is the "Cultural References" section not OR? I am willing to concede that making the connection with the other episode is a bit more of a grey area, but the Cultural References section seems pretty clear cut to me.--Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in editting at the Simpsons wiki? It doesn't have any of the limitations that Wikipedia has, so you can add just about anything relating to the show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

{{ This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Today, I am a Clown, you will be blocked from editing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Today, I am a Clown. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The time has come for you to stop posting on my talk page

It's clear that you have a problem with me. There's nothing I can do or say that will change that. However, your campaign of harassment needs to stop. At some point, I'm going to stop merely removing that stuff from my talk page and eventually pursue some kind of sanctions against you. If you don't like editing here because you can't get your version of this or that page implemented, that's not my business. Don't take it out on me. Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to this vandals talk page can be viewed here[1]. They are a collection of comments from contributors that were unjustly deleted. All of which point out the facts that Croctotheface deletes and disrupts on Wikipedia and does not contribute. No other comments have been deleted just these. Croctotheface's talk page is the least neutral page on Wikipedia. MJD86 (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Santa's Little Helper. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 07:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MJD86 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppety. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Rudget . 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, MJD86. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fawzia Mohamed

The article Fawzia Mohamed has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable beauty queen, didn't win a major title.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gaukhar Rakhmetaliyeva

The article Gaukhar Rakhmetaliyeva has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violation of WP:BLP1E policy.

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. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of San Francisco Gold Rush for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article San Francisco Gold Rush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Gold Rush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nemov (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]