User talk:Wiki-star

Welcome!

Hello, Wiki-star, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

Wiki-star, I noticed that you removed several warnings regarding copyrighted images from your talk page. Please do not remove warnings from your talk page without discussing them. You may wish to consider archiving your old discussions, but please do not blank your page without replying to the issues with copyrighted images. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from uploading any images without first reading the image use policy as I've told you before. Isopropyl 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: I had to! They were taking up far too much space within this talk page. But thanks again though. Wiki-star 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARCHIVE. Please do not simply remove warnings. Isopropyl 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:222-83.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:222-83.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing problems

Hello, Wiki-alf. I've been asked to look into your image uploads, and I've a few comments to make. Firstly, I'm glad that you've such a strong interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you continue that. However, your addition of images without sources aren't helpful. Because of the copyright problems that Wikipedia faces, we have to delete images without copyright and source information. If you can't provide source and copyright info, it's better to not upload them at all as it wastes the time of someone who has to go through the images and delete them. Please don't do this anymore. If you have any questions, you're more than welcome to ask me on my talk page. Yours, Snoutwood (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: I'm actually in the process of doing that. But because i uploaded such a tremendous amount of images, it seems like i'm not getting to all of them. But i'm on it, no doubt! Wiki-star 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than uploading them and then putting sources on them, why not simply put the sources on them in the first place? That would solve all of these problems. Snoutwood (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:026-06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:026-06.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:048-20.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:048-20.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:049-15.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:049-15.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Vandalism

keep in mind that you will be reported if you continue to vandalize the buu article. this will of course result in your banning for your not following the 3rr revert rule. - Zarbon

Wiki-star: I'm not stopping you from reporting me. However, i will stop you from adding more "decoration" to the Buu article when it isn't neccessary!

Wiki-star 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that would mean that you will eventually get banned for constant and unneccessary reverts. - Zarbon

Revert warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Voice of Treason 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Why are you warning me about something that you yourself is also commiting? Don't be a hypocrite me good sir, life isn't all about that! One more thing you should understand laddy, is that this is not a debate. The article is fine the way it is, theres no need to keep reverting it! Wiki-star 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to have been a debate as others (that being, several) severely disagree with your application of the word "fine". And as you already knew, discussion had been done, and yet, you still reverted at first opportunity you got. So no, I'm not particularly worried about hypocracy coming from someone who says one thing and does another. And if the admins do deem me responsible, I'll take my licks like any reasonable editor. Thanks for the response. Voice of Treason 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have bene reported to WP:AN/3RR for violation of the three revert rule. Isopropyl 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Go ahead and report me, you're also guilty of this. If i am banned from this site, it has definitelty been a very pleasurable experience! Wiki-star 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not the attitude that you should have with regards to editing here at Wikipedia. If you have gained nothing from this second block for 3RR at Majin Buu, I would recommend that you be permanently banned from editing the article. Isopropyl 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 7 2006 (UTC) to Buu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent diatribe at Talk:Buu

Let me first say that you should reconsider committing WP:POINT violations (such as reverting Buu) and asking to be permabanned (such as at Talk:Buu. I actually thing you'd make a fine contributor if you could get over your WP:OWN issues; however, if you wish to leave Wikipedia, please do not vandalize on your way out the door. In response to your diatribe at Talk:Buu, you should have a look at the history and WP:3RR before you accuse other editors of anything. It's plain to see from the aforementioned documents that Voice of Treason did not violate 3RR. Hopefully that clears some things up. Isopropyl 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Thanks for your concern, i really appreciate that. However, if i wish to be permanently banned, then thats my business.

I've served a purpose on this site long enough, i just can't be getting punished unfairly! And what do you mean he did not commit the voilation as well? He reported me because i kept reverting the article the right way, whereas he wanted it his way! I could've reported him, but thats a waist of my time. Anyway, thanks again! Wiki-star 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]