User talk:MDesjardinss

Hi. I have reviewed your report at AIV. Rather than just deny it, I simply commented on the shared enthusiasms of yourself and 67.60.203.231 (talk · contribs) - Boxing, NASCAR and reporting The359 to WP:AIV - and asking other editors to review my notes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi MDesjardinss! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MDesjardinss. You have new messages at Optakeover's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

However..

The person is right to say you accidentally re-reverted back to a source that is wrong. The person in the article is still alive, and someone added a source saying that the person is dead. Yes, the source talks about George Michael being dead, but its a different George Michael. So, here is the confusion. Optakeover ^(Talk) 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realized that a little bit late. The George Michael who died was a sports broadcaster and someone else had put the source in, then when someone removed it without a reason, that is when I reverted it back.(MDesjardinss (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've also talked to the anonymous user not to call you a vandal just because you made a mistake. Optakeover ^(Talk) 19:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its all good man thanks. I'm also new to this site, so I'm still learning the basics.(MDesjardinss (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, notice the talkback template. Once you have finished reading the person's reply on his talkpage, you can delete the talkback template from your talkpage. I can help you if you want. Cheers, Optakeover ^(Talk) 19:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok man, I will leave everything here except the obvious vandalism and hoaxes. I just want to do my best to become an admin. That is my goal.(MDesjardinss (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

User talk:Sfan00 IMG

Im really confused here, you just templated a long time user who is removing stale deletion captions of images. He was not removing speedy tags, and even if he was you shouldnt have given a level three warning as the first notice. Can you please explain your actions? β^_command 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His last fifty or so edits have been removing speedy deletion tags. They read something like this, "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion."(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your mistaken. he is not removing speedy tags. If you take a look at what hes actually doing instead of blindly reverting you will see that he is removing {{deletable image-caption}} which should only be used on images that are tagged. what Sfan is doing is cleaning up old tags from images that where either not deleted or moved to commons (in which case the image is still usable but was deleted here). You where out of line with your actions. In the future before templating a long term user you might want to ask nicely because more times than not they know what they are doing are are correct in doing it. I think you owe Sfan an apology for your comments as they where out of line. β^_command 03:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for that mistake.(MDesjardinss (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What is a "sockpuppet"?

Re your query on my talkpage; please click WP:SOCK. There are two interpretations that springs immediately to mind - you and the ip address that previously reported The359 to WP:AIV are the same, and that sockpuppet is a little too strong suggestion that you created the account to further the dispute you had as the ip, or that you are an knowledgable editor who is using a "new" account for a purpose without disclosing your editing history. Given that you were able to find and use AIV so readily, yet say that you are unfamiliar with the term sockpuppet (which is an internet meme, not only a WP term), tends to persuade me to the latter... However, it is the Season of Goodwill and I am only going to note my thoughts here - and suggest that you withdraw and reconsider your gameplan (and preferably abandon it). Salutations of the Season! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MDesjardinss. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

I think huggle did not pull the latest edit (unless I force it to) and so our edits "clashed". This made huggle warn you. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now I know why some editors here don't use it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.(MDesjardinss (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thechroniclesofratman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

I have no idea what you're talking aboutAhmedfarhat (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Pink discography in which you just removed things without a reason is unconstructive.(MDesjardinss (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think you should really consider getting a life :) how constructive is that? Very! Right? Oh, I thought so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I get blocked, I won't be able to use this account no more, or what exactly happens. I've been getting a lot of warnings lately and I don't know how it goes.. Ahmedfarhat (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of vandalism you are committing. You might get one block and be let back on, but if you get blocked a second time, it will probably indefinite.(MDesjardinss (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

and what if I create another account? Ahmedfarhat (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I learned just this week that creating another account after having your other account blocked is called a sock puppet account and that is against Wikipedia policy. Just stick with this account. Just try not to do anything wrong.(MDesjardinss (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

But I already have like 6 accounts! I never received any warnings for that reason. After all, how would they know it's me!? Sorry I sound really stupid but I feel so lost! I mean, if I say some bad word to you, like if I swear to you, I get blocked, right? Then I can't edit anything. But I create another account and edit all I want, and swear all I want and when I get blocked I create a third one.. But it's not that easy, is it? Ahmedfarhat (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that is against the rules and we can block permanently for that, right?(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm curious

Is there a reason you left this warning after User:Minimac94 had already left a warning for the edit? Regards Tiderolls 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but two of the warnings were a week old. There is a reason the warnings are given in an order. If a report is made to AIV and the examining admin determines that there has not been sufficient warning, the report may be declined. Unless there are extenuating circumstances it's best to apply warnings in the proper order. Regards Tiderolls 21:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you keep accusing me of defamation of character, I will make you eat that in court. He did you are just ignorant of it. Aaron Peskin Came to San Francisco General and tried to pull the I.V. out of my arm. He came to my school and tried to have me kicked out of school, because I was homeless. Are you really defending him?Tobynixon (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well bring it on then. Look I don't care who you are, but defamation of character is not allowed here. You are your only witness, so therefore none of us believe you.(MDesjardinss (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Witnesses include the then Chancellor, Dean of Activities, A San Francisco City College cop and several of the then City College Associated Students Representatives. As for the scene he made at the hospital those are witness by the San Francisco Sheriffs Department. So continue to call it defamation of Character. Don't know who Aaron Peskin is? I hardly believe that. Tobynixon (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]