User talk:MountCan

Howdy[edit]

What do you need help with? I can speak to you in French or in English, whatever you like. MTLskyline (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short you need your account to be autoconfirmed (to get autoconfirmed, your wikipedia account must be at least 4 days old and you must have made at least 10 edits with that account)

“

A number of actions on the english wikipedia are restricted to user accounts which pass certain thresholds for age and editcount: users which meet these requirements are considered part of the pseudo-group autoconfirmed. Autoconfirmed status is checked every time the user performs a restricted action: consequently, it is granted automatically by the software and cannot be removed. The precise requirements for autoconfirmed status varies according to circumstances: for most users on en.wiki, accounts which are more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, users editing through a TOR network are subjected to much stricter autoconfirmed thresholds: currently 90 days and 100 edits.

Autoconfirmed status is required to move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file. Autoconfirmed users are no longer required to enter a CAPTCHA for most events. Autoconfirmed users may also mark pages as patrolled in Special:NewPages

”

Source: Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users

MTLskyline (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

You may copy the layout of my Sandbox if you say that I was the original creator. Also, you cannot use my article on HSM 4. This is kept for interest and may not be published anywhere else. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. You may use the references, but not the exact text. You could paraphrase it, though. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE:Sandbox[edit]

Just move the article to your userspace and put on the top of the article that I originally created it. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly[edit]

Not officially, at least according to NHC. I haven't seen a TWD or an advisory that confirms a downgrade. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is no evidence that it has been downgraded, shouldn't it be kept as a Cat. 2? Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see the update. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 3PM update here yet, so it hasn't been released to the public. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see the link? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what you tried to say by that, but all of our information has to come from verifiable, reliable sources. Putting 3PM on the infobox makes it seem like the position of the storm at 2PM was the same as 3PM, which is wrong. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 4PM update is out, so there was no need to remove that. I've reverted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There's about a dozen editors watching the article and the news feeds, so these things get fixed fast. Since the article is really visible right now (linked from the Main Page), we're trying to set things straight and keep them as accurate as possible as quickly as possible. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MountCan/Linkbox[edit]

Please change your linkbox. It is an exact copy of a previous version of mine (see User:ComputerGuy890100/Linkbox). You must either delete it or give me credit for the design. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of me[edit]

In this edit, you claimed to have reverted an edit of mine, and told me to stop "edit warring" or else I will be blocked.

First of all, I have not edited that since 2 hours ago. Secondly, I have never made such a large edit like that. Thirdly, there is no edit warring going on on that article at all - so how could I possibly be edit warring in the first place? Please clear this up quickly, as accusing someone of edit warring is quite serious. --haha169 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Is this personal? I don't believe I have ever done anything to you, yet you keep on accusing me of stuff I have never done. I also take WP:DTTR seriously as well. And may I remind you that I haven't edited the article in 2 hours, and haven't reverted anybody's edits on that article at all. Explain this to me personally without leaving templates. --haha169 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MountCan, I expect a reply to my questions above. --haha169 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any diffs to prove this? I would love to find some diffs that prove this - since I haven't touched the article at all in the past two hours. --haha169 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a reply to my last question as well. --haha169 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to prove it, you'll have to find the diffs. In addition, I can safely say that the only thing that I have ever removed from the article are uncited additions. I even mention them in my edit summaries. If you disagree with my edit, you have to first address my edit summary concerns, not breaking WP:CIVIL and leaving my first 2 vandal templates ever (I never got one before 1/2, as well as accusing me with such a high-level breakage of Wikipedia policy, as well as accusing me of vandalism and being a vandal. That is a high-level accusation, and its your job to find me diffs. --haha169 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I don't know what you're saying. Apparently, this is because of one sentence. You do not leave two templates and an accusation of edit warring because I removed one sentence. I also found the diff, and I also found my edit summary: "Remove unnecessary detail". Apparently, other editors think its unnecessary as well, since they are removing it too. Also, you'll need a cite for that. I'm removing your vandal templates from my talk page. They trash it up. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please write more clearly next time. I honestly cannot make heads or tails or what you're trying to say. --haha169 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chino Hills earthquake[edit]

Your revert removed much recently-added content and references, so I reverted back to restore them. Please discuss such actions on the talk page before executing them. Thanks, Cliff smith (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sorry[edit]

No problem. People can become over-protective of their additions on Wikipedia. It's natural, and happens to all humans. Just try your best not to jump to conclusions next time. --haha169 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi House![edit]

Letting you know, i started a thread on you here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MountCan.2C_probable_sock_of_banned_User:House1090.2C_causing_trouble_again

Feel free to defend yourself if you want. Amerique^dialectics 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]