User talk:Ray-Ginsay

Freeza

Hello, Rei-Ginsei. I'd like to discuss your recent page move of Freeza to Frieza. I'm not sure if your aware of this or not, but before moving pages, your supposed to bring it up on the talk page first and see what other users have to say about it. If you had done this, you would have realized that there was a discussion in June and it was decided that the article be called Freeza. For more about this decision, please see this. Please keep this in mind before moving pages, or people will consider you a "page-move vandal" and you will most likely be prohibited from editing, either for a specific period of time or indefinately. Thank you for your time. // PoeticDecay 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Van Helsing

For anything but the most obvious page renamings it is expected that the proposed renaming will be discussed first. To rename a page without discussion is not good; to do it again, still without discussion, after the first attempt has been resisted, begins to look like bad faith.

Since you seem not to read either the edit histories or the talk page, I will repeat here what I said there:

"Abraham is subject to frequent change in the movies" is not a good reason for renaming the article to Van Helsing (novel character). If you are renaming the article to make it clear that it is about the novel character, then the name of his movie equivalents is irrelevant.
"It is about the overall character, not just the novel one" is a flat-out bad reason for renaming the article to Van Helsing (novel character). If the article is about the overall character, not just the novel one, why add "novel character" to the title of the article?

Please, please read and join in the discussion at Talk:Abraham Van Helsing. Tell us, if you can, why you think this renaming is a good idea. Don't rename it again without discussing it first. --Paul A 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Helsing again

Hi Rei-Ginsei, Please don't make unilateral and unexplained moves, reversions and deletions of material on Abraham van Helsing without discussing it on the talk page first. The current name meets Wikipedia's naming conventions, and you're deleting the legitmate cleanup of other editors without cause. The reasons for your changes are very unclear, and your failure to communicate makes it difficult to reach an understanding. ~CS 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)The Serene Silver Star 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Username change

Go and have a look at WP:CHU. I can help you with filing a request, if you like. What is the new username you want? All your contributions will be transferred over the accounts. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to WP:CHU and fill in the request, a bureaucrat can help you with the name change. There shouldn't be any problems. :-) --Deskana (ya rly) 02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:RCP. What I tend to do is look at Special:Recentchanges (a list of all edits being made), and filter it so it displays only edits by IP addresses (this link), and look for large removals or insertions using the diff button and the numbers next (red and bold means large removal of text). Then you can revert them and Template:TestTemplates warn them. Hopefully I've not confused you! It's all on WP:RCP :-) --Deskana (ya rly) 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be less Proactive, More Patient, and more Willing to Discuss before you Sabotage what I'm editing.

I was trying to build a table, to clean up that mess of a page. Don't cut me off when I'm editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.193.219 (talk • contribs)

Willy

Everyone knows about willy on wheels. I, and all the other admins, spend much of our time watching out for his sockpuppets. Your question?--Anthony.bradbury 19:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gremlinprince

What pages do you refer to? you make no reference to the pages I have apparently vandelised!!!!! gremlinprince

Stage names

Hello. With regards to stagenames, there is some variation on whether or not they should be used. Stage names are normally more appropriate though, as they are the name with which the character is most associated. --Deskana (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Helsing yet again

For anything but the most obvious page renamings it is expected that the proposed renaming will be discussed before any action is taken. This point has already been explained to you in detail; what will it take to get it to sink in? --Paul A (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

As mentioned in my edit summary you have yet to provide a source for your adding Bela Lugosi's name to this sentence. The comparison to Karloff's urbane manner is mentioned in Prices bio written by his daughter and can be sourced as such. However if you wish to remove it please feel free to do so but do not add information that can not be verified by outside sources. MarnetteD | Talk 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 71.61.112.23 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thank You!

Sure thing! - Gwandoya^Talk 03:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mark Patterson (Racing Analyst)

An editor has nominated Mark Patterson (Racing Analyst), 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/Mark Patterson (Racing Analyst) 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) 05:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehenge

It is true, some people believe the moon is made of green cheese and aliens built Stonehenge, but this does not mean we have to give serious credence to these views on wikipedia. Who are these dissenting archaeologists? The phases of construction are well documented facts. Please either provide some clarification as to why this needs a caveat or it seems as though you are pushing a POV yourself about the construction. Benea (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote when I reverted your latest repeat, you can find people who think the world is flat, people who believe that California is an independent country, etc. There is no excuse to suggest any doubt (which is what you are doing) about Stonehenge being built in stages.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

You may wish to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's sock puppetry policies. (Sock puppetry--here--is making multiple accounts to create the illusion of multiple wikipedia editors). In the "search" box type "wikipedia: sock puppetry". Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in Vampire, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Vampire. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Max Schreck. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced and unnecessary. Also, see WP:MOS. I have a complaint system, please use it next time. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 21:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

{{unblock|I just dont see what I have done wrong. I have greatly contributed to the suspenders article and Sterling Holloway just created that article about Harry Cording and yet you ay that I have only vandalised? I really dont understand what I have done wrong. I admit I may have been a bit pushy about having certain pages my way but we are all human and Ill try to get better. Furthermore, I have actually reverted OTHER people's vandalism before, as you will see if you go back into my edit history. If it is about what recently happened on the vampire article then I apologize and promise not to edit war. But you have got to admit that I am not a vandal only account, So please unblock me, I dont see what I have done wrong and am clueless as to why I was blocked as a vandal, especially when I have actually reverted real vandalism before.}}

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I saw the AIV report and I checked for warnings on your talkpage. I saw the warnings then I blocked. This was real faulty as a. I didn't check some other threads b. didn't look throughly through the conribs. I apologize for this, all my fault, to be truly honest. Maxim_(talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Maxim_(talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

{{unblock|Despite having seemingly been unblocked(the block was due to a misunderstanding) I still cannot edit!}}

Lingering autoblock wasn't cleared, they sometimes get overlooked in these situations (sorry!). Try again? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained blanking

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Count Dracula, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Count Dracula. 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. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Mark Patterson (Horse Racing Analyst)

A tag has been placed on Mark Patterson (Horse Racing Analyst), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Mark Patterson (Horse Racing Analyst) is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Mark Patterson (Horse Racing Analyst) saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Benea (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RRCM

You have posted the following in the "User talk:RRCM" page:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)"

I have recently read the Wikipedia page for "vandalism." To my knowledge, none of my edits constitute "vandalism." Please provide me with references to the pages you believe I have vandalized. Thank you. RRCM (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (U.S. Pacific Time)

AfD nomination of Count Magnus Lee

I have nominated Count Magnus Lee, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count Magnus Lee. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<a href="url">http://www.w3schools.com/HTML/html_links.asp</a>

Australia–Kosovo relations

This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Libstar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Fiend Corps for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article The Fiend Corps, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fiend Corps until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Raymie (t • c) 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]