User talk:Mstare88

Welcome!

Hello, Mstare88, 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! --Richard 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Christianity. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

I noticed that you are trying to insert text into the Christianity article indicating that it is "the one true religion". Please take note that such language violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please stop inserting this kind of text into Wikipedia articles.

--Richard 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Xenu

While we all have opinions, it does not make them fact. Please read through WP:Five Pillars carefully before making further edits. Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. mceder (u t c) 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting your opinions in Wikipedia articles

First of all, if you wish to leave me a message, please do so on User talk:Richardshusr which is my Talk Page and not on User:Richardshusr which is my User Page. Your last message to me was left on my User Page and deemed vandalism by another editor and therefore reverted.

Second and far more importantly, all of your edits to date including your most recent one to the Xenu article have been in violation of Wikipedia policies, most notably the one on neutral point of view. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia but, if you don't edit according to Wikipedia policies, your account will wind up being blocked. It is my hope that you will learn to be a valued contributor here. Please read the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. If you have any questions, I am happy to discuss them with you. Just leave a message on my Talk Page.

--Richard 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on POV

I have replied to your question on my Talk Page. Also, please sign your messages (on any Talk Page but NOT on articles) by inserting ~~~~ at the end of your message. A shortcut for signing is tenth tool from the left on the Wikipedia tool bar immediately above the editing area. It looks like a scrawled signature. When Wikipedia sees four tildes in a row, it will substitute your username and add the current time.

--Richard 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about being blocked

I am moving this discussion to your Talk Page in case you don't have my Talk Page on your watchlist.

You wrote:

I would like to know why i was blocked from editing articles and trying to talk on your page. if it is about the articles on the vegitarinanism and Xuyen Pham i did not do those. I was onb and saw that they were under my contributions and tryed to talk to u on your talk page but i was blocked. if i am going to be blocked i wouold like a warning saying i will be blocked for good or a certain amount of time. I would also like for the person blocking me to send me a message explaining why i am being blocked. i was really anoyyed at the fact that i was blocked. have a nice day.Mstare88 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to these messages was "This person was mistaken. I didn't block him (or her) because I'm not an admin and I can't block anyone."

My second reaction, frankly, was "Well, if someone did block him/her, it's probably justified given my experience with his edits in the past."

Nonetheless, I figured that I would find out who blocked User:Mstare88 so that I could leave a message here to give you the username of the admin who blocked you. However, a look at your block log shows no blocks having been placed on you, past or present.

You may have experienced an autoblock which happens when someone using the same IP address as you is blocked. This is frustrating and the WP:Autoblock page explains how you can get an autoblock lifted.

However, I should comment that a review of your contributions indicates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies. I would urge you to read the pages linked to by the Welcome that I left on your talk page. In particular, read WP:NOT to learn what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog farm or discussion forum. Please learn what Wikipedia is intended to be and how things work here before making any further edits.

To date, your first edits were unencyclopedic with a general tendency towards pushing your point of view using poorly written sentences. This characterizes your edits to the Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses and Xenu articles. Your edit to the Xuyen Pham article inserted information that, even if true, was unencyclopedic in nature. Xuyen Pham may be notable but that does not confer notability on her cousin at Mechanicsburg high school. Finally, your insertion of a joke into the Vegetarianism article is inappropriate for reasons that should be obvious to you.

In short, if you have not been blocked yet, it is only because you have not yet been referred to an administrator. When users like myself or ElinorD leave you warnings, it doesn't always mean that we will personally block you. We are giving you a chance to "clean up your act" before someone reports you to an admin and requests that you be blocked.

I was sincere in my welcome. It is my earnest hope that you will learn to be a valued contributor to Wikipedia. However, in order for that to happen, you need to make a paradigm shift about the content and style of your contributions. I hope you will do this. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my Talk Page.

--Richard 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My replies to your questions

I have responded to your questions on my Talk Page. If my Talk Page is on your watchlist, let me know and I will not leave these notices here. If you wish me to respond on this Talk Page, let me know that. I prefer to keep questions and answers on the same Talk Page. It makes it easier for people to follow a discussion. --Richard 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your most recent questions on my Talk Page. --Richard 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JW edits

You asked on my Talk page about the objections to your inappropriate edits. You really can't tell which of your edits was POV and which was just unnecessary? I find that difficult to believe. But to humour you:

"This religon is false. and it is not in any part apartof Christianity. Do not follow this religon"

That is blatantly POV and unencyclopedic (and really bad spelling and grammar to boot). Encyclopedias DO NOT tell people whether they should or should not follow a particular religion (or "religon" as you call it). The other edit was just unnecessary (and it is incredulous to think that you can't tell the difference):

"(the number 144,000 comes from the twelve tribes of Israel. There are 12,000 people in each tribe.)"

Reference to the 12 tribes is straying off topic. Additionally, there aren't literally exactly 12,000 members of each tribe of Israel, so without any reference to the source scripture, the statement is misleading. Just reviewing your user Talk page, it seems that it should be no surprise to you that your POV edits are inappropriate.--Jeffro77 00:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your question

I'm not entirely sure what your asking, but yes, someone was vandalizing the page early today and I reverted it. Natalie 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are in the edit history, so you have seen for yourself the username of the vandal. I don't know anything more than you do. They have not been blocked because they were warned and did not do it again. If the account continues to vandalize it will be blocked indefinitely, and probably won't be unblocked. Natalie 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something puzzling and vaguely disturbing about the vandalism described above. The vandalism to the Jehovah's Witnesses page was committed by User:Coolman76. A review of Coolman76's contributions reveals vandalism to Xuyen Pham and to Jehovah's Witnesses which are both articles that have been edited by User:Mstare88.

This would appear to be more than coincidence. If it were not for assuming good faith, one might suspect that Coolman76 and Mstare88 were either the same person or co-conspirators. However, assuming good faith, one wonders if the current user of Coolman76 may have hijacked Mstare88's account in the past and upon being denied access to that account, has now created a new account with which to vandalize.

I cannot do more than speculate but I just point out the base evidence in case it is of value to anyone else. Mstare88, can you shed any light on this mystery?

--Richard 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Mstare88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

71.173.138.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Coolman76". The reason given for Coolman76's block is: "vandal only account".

Blocking administrator: Natalie Erin (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Sorry, I can't find any productive contributions from this account either. Can you please point me to some? — Yamla 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

why am i autoblocked?

why?!

Why am i autoblocked and why has my request to be unblocked been declined?!!?? I am gatting irratated becase this is the second time that i have been autoblocked.

It appears that you were auto-blocked because you share the same IP address as User:Coolman76 and are therefore the victim of "collateral damage" of the autoblock feature of the Wikipedia software. Consult WP:AUTOBLOCK for more info.

This autoblock could be lifted by any admin upon request via the "unblock" tag but User:Yamla has declined your request because, in his opinion, your contributions history shows no "productive" edits.

At this point, I would say that you are in the same situation as User:Coolman76. In order to get the block lifted, you need to convince an admin that you intend to make a productive edit. If I were you, I would find a subject that interests you and come up with something uncontroversial and useful that you can add to it. Put the name of the article here along with the text of your proposed edit. Then, resubmit the unblock request and hope that you can convince an admin to lift your autoblock. At this moment, your track record is speaking against you and you will need to work extra hard to convince an admin that you have abandoned your old ways and will be a productive editor. Good luck. Feel free to ask me for more help if you need it.

--Richard 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL '93

Well, that's certainly a dramatic improvement over your previous edits. Congratulations.

I do want to encourage you to contribute but you should be aware that there is an article titled Madden NFL which covers the general category of Madden NFL games. In the future, it might make sense to do a Wikipedia search on your proposed topic before creating a new article.

I would suggest that you talk with other editors at Talk:Madden NFL and figure out whether it makes sense to have a separate article on Madden NFL '93 or whether it makes more sense to merge your article into Madden NFL. You might convince them that there should be a separate article on each release of Madden NFL or they might absolutely insist that such articles are unnecessary. I don't know. That's not an area that I know much about nor have I been involved in that article at all.

I suspect that, sooner or later, someone will come along and nominate Madden NFL '93 for deletion on the grounds that the Madden NFL article already covers the topic and is better written. If that happens, don't lose your cool. Frankly, I would nominate Madden NFL '93 for deletion myself except that I don't want you to feel like you've been slapped down when you are just learning how to contribute.

If you're interested, you might read WP:Deletion process and WP:AFD to learn more about how articles get deleted. An unpleasant prospect, I know, but you might as well learn about it.

Understand that we are all working to make the encyclopedia better. When all is said and done, Madden NFL '93 might get deleted and your contribution to Madden NFL might wind up being only a sentence or two. It may take some time before you are able to contribute large amounts of text that are considered worth keeping. But, keep at it. You'll get there.

And, if you need any help or encouragement, you can always ask me.

--Richard 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coolman76

I think that coolman76 is done. he says taht he wants to delete his profile because it is his fault that i am blocked. he also wants to quit because he will never be unblocked.Mstare88 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please

Hey Richard please convince natalie and yamla to unblock me.Mstare88 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left messages on both of their Talk Pages. I have not had any previous interaction with them so I can only hope that I have been persuasive enough to convince them. Ultimately, though, it is your actions which will do the persuading. It seems that you are not "directly blocked" but "autoblocked" and can still edit some pages. Is this true? I've never been blocked or autoblocked so I don't know what it looks like when it happens.

--Richard 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Madden Football '93

I don't know if you are aware of this but the article that you created (John Madden NFL '93) was redirected to John Madden Football '93 by User:Clicketyclack less than an hour after you created it. What this means is that anybody who looks for the article John Madden NFL '93 will be brought to John Madden Football '93 instead and your work is basically inaccessible to people browsing or searching Wikipedia.

This is something of a downer but I figured something like that might happen and tried to warn you. In the future, it's a good idea to find articles related to the article that you want to create and ask the editors if they think you should create the article. They might tell you that an article already exists on the proposed topic or they might suggest that the topic is too small in scope and should be discussed as part of an article on a larger topic.

However, all is not lost. If you look at John Madden Football '93, you will find that most of what you wrote in your article] is not in John Madden Football '93. So this suggests that you should put your text into John Madden Football '93. You might need some help cleaning up the writing but the facts that you put in your article seem worthwhile to me. You might copy your text to Talk:John Madden Football '93 and ask for help cleaning it up before putting it into the article.

Good luck.

--Richard 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since John Madden NFL '93 is now a redlink, it has apparently been deleted. I'm not sure why. If you care, you can ask an admin to look at the deletion log for the specific reason. --Richard 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "talk"

Please don't use my talk page as a general forum for you to invite discussion with members in general.--Jeffro77 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your other query: I explained about the 144,000 issue already, and why your additional information was unnecessary in the lead, and also misleading. You evidently made the other edit while not signed in (and therefore as an anonymous IP address), so there was no way of identifying that edit as yours. In any case, your edit about hell was not strictly correct.--Jeffro77 08:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

Following message from Natalie is copied from my Talk Page...

The autoblock is, as the name implies, automatic, and only lasts for 24 hours. So the autoblock on that user should have expired already. If it hasn't, I must confess that I don't know how to release an autoblock (it's a different process than a simple unblock), but there is a request for release of autoblock template somewhere. The user should have gotten instructions when they attempted to edit. Natalie 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I guess I should have read up more on autoblocks.

--Richard 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mstare88, hopefully by now the autoblock has expired and you can edit again. You might wish to read Wikipedia:Autoblock for future reference. --Richard 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am still blocked.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 71.173.138.61 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are the unforum

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Virginia Tech massacre for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. --Dynaflow 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that Wikipedia is not a blog or discussion forum. You have a right to express your opinion. However, the comments that you made would be OK for a user Talk Page but not for an article Talk Page. Discussion on article Talk Pages should be restricted to discussion of how to edit an article such as what facts to put in the article. If you think an article should not exist, then you can nominate it for deletion. However, in the case of Virginia Tech massacre, the decision would have been "Speedy keep" so you would have wasted everybody's time. --Richard 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request

Copied from my talk page: check out some of my edits i think that i have done a great job on edits and have done a complete turnaround.Mstare88 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have never crossed your path before, I am not sure what you want me to look for in your edits. Perhaps this message was meant for another editor? -- Pastordavid 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the original message was meant for me? In any event, I have looked at your recent contributions and I will say that those edits show a marked improvement. You are well on your way to being a valued contributor. May I make a couple of suggestions?

First, please pay more attention to spelling, grammar and formatting.

Second, you might take a minute to figure out how templates work. It appears that you screwed up the call to the Template:Pittsburgh Steelers depth chart template by deleting the second "}". Every template call starts with two opening brackets {{ and ends with two closing brackets }}. You deleted the second closing bracket. Another editor had to restore the second closing bracket. Ask me if you need more help.

Finally, read WP:NOT. Regarding your initial edits to the Vince Young article, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please do not insert rumors into Wikipedia articles. If it is just a rumor then it should not be included in the article. If it is a fact (such as an announcement by EA), then it is acceptable. It would help if you could provide a citation to a newspaper article or website.

Hope this helps. Keep up the good work.

--Richard 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Same-sex marriage (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning for editing Same-sex marriage (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // MartinBot 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Same-sex marriage, you will be blocked from editing. Will (aka Wimt) 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Rich Lichtel

A tag has been placed on Rich Lichtel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Yours edits still show that you haven't understood what is acceptable editing and what isn't. You edit to Scientology was blatant POV-pushing, and your edit to 25th December plain wrong. The encyclopedia needs a break from your attitudes, and you need time to consider whether you should be editing here or standing in a pulpit somewhere.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rodhull andemu 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]