User talk:Matster9090

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Matster9090, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username 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}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! SKYNET X7000 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom arcade

Hi Matster, I've added an under-construction tag to Phantom arcade. Please add an assertion of importance or notability to the article as soon as possible, otherwise it is at risk of deletion without discussion (under criteria WP:SPEEDY#A7). WP:WEB is our notability guideline for websites, I hope this helps. Marasmusine (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom arcade

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Phantom arcade, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Phantom arcade

A tag has been placed on Phantom arcade requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 article's 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 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. TexMurphy (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Phantom arcade

An editor has nominated Phantom arcade, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom arcade and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Arcade

Hi Matster - I think you must be confusing me with somebody else; I didn't delete your article. In fact, I specifically declined to do so under the speedy deletion criteria, to allow you to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. Instead the article was deleted after a community discussion, which is here. All participants in that discussion supported the article's deletion, so it was deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was a hoax or not, in order to have a Wikipedia article it needed to demonstrate coverage in reliable, third party sources, which it did not. Has it been covered in any such sources? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One request: would you consider removing the suggestion from your userpage that I am an "out of control admin"? I ask because your rationale for saying this seems to be that you're upset about your page being deleted, but I didn't delete your page (User:Bongwarrior did, but only after the community's consensus came down in favour of doing so). If you insist on leaving it up, could you clarify for me exactly what is "out of control" about me, so that I can consider your criticisms? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; misunderstandings happen. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master9090, I would suggest that you look at the articles for deletion process and see how it works. The reason I am suggesting this is that no one person or vote determines what should be deleted. It is based on what the consensus of those commenting on the nomination is.

You also asked me to restore the page above. I cannot do that. It actually was correct for me to suggest that this article might be a hoax. On Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to keep an article. Since you provided no independent sources, the only assumption that I could make was that it was, at best, original research or, at worst, a hoax. See WP:PROVEIT for the details on that. If there are enough independent sources, then you could easily add the article again. But, unless those sources exist, it will likely get deleted again. And no offense intended, without independent sources to establish notability, I would argue for deletion again.

If you are going to recreate the page, I would suggest reviewing the pages on crystal balling, web page notability and advertising. I am not saying that the page would be one of these, but reviewing them could help you write the page in such a way that it would not get deleted. Also, if you want to work on it in a section where it won't be deleted while you are testing it, you could start out in a sandbox page. Just click on User:Matster9090/Sandbox to start a sandbox sub-page.Slavlin (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW- if any part of the item above sounds rude, I do apologize. I just got home from work and am a bit tired. Slavlin (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Mario Kart Wii 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. Epbr123 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Mario Kart Wii constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

June 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Xbox 360. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SkyWalker (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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. --VS ^talk 09:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Arrowned (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you show that you can't edit constructively by vandalizing Wikipedia again (like you did at Wikipedia and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2), you will be blocked from editing. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOOH! I lol'd at that post, it sounded like you was angry.

Please don't refactor or reword users' talk page comments. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then.

This account has been blocked indefinitely because it appears to have been compromised. Blueboy 96 15:45, 8 November 2009 (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).

Matster9090 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account has not been compromised - Blueboy96 has made this up just to ban me from wikipedia. Unblock me please.

Decline reason:

Sorry. TN X Man 15:53, 8 November 2009 (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.

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).

Matster9090 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The previous reason for declining was extremely poor 'Sorry' does not explain this rubbish.

Decline reason:

Allow me to elaborate. Your unblock request did not address Blueboy96's block reason (apparent compromise) and did not address your behavior. For future requests, address your behavior instead of blaming others (". . .made this up just to ban me"). TN X Man 16:01, 8 November 2009 (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.

Your ability to edit this page has been disabled, as you are continuing to refactor other's comments. TN X Man 16:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]