User talk:Canadasprincess

Image:Nefretifi.2007.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nefretifi.2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Melissa jennifer mancini[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Melissa jennifer mancini, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Melissa jennifer mancini seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Melissa jennifer mancini, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to User:Harro5. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Harro5 may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Melissa Jennifer Mancini,aged 20: Okay so I get it...what I said and did was unnecessary and stupid,but why must I get blocked? That is so unfair,I love editing on Wikipedia...but in the other hand I didnt think my posts would get deleted.and when I saw they did I got mad.So please I beg you,unblock me and I assure you I won't do it again.Please give me one more chance.

Decline reason:

reason —Reduced block to 72 hours as you're a user with not many edits, the blocking admin is one whose paged you vandalized, and I feel indef is excessive here. However, you need to learn how wiki works and stay calm and civil. I also suggest you get most if not all that personal info off your user page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Contacting blocking admin. It's interesting that he is also the one you were in dispute with. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Melissa: So..I see you reduced my block to 72 hours instead of Indefinite,I apperciate that and that makes me feel much better. I did read the guidlines and rules to Wikipedia,Though I should have In the beginning when I signed up,Im sorry for causing trouble and like I said before It will NOT happen again.The most thing I usually come on here is to look up anything In History and Forensic science. And yes....I may have edit pages wrongfully but I only try my best. What Harro5 could have done was contacted me about a recent page I created that had no resources to it ,Instead of just Deleting it. I refuse to argue and remain to stay calm and Polite which I actually am. But...Thank you,for reviewing my request and reducing the block to 72 hours.I feel bettter about that. and one more thing: So...you say I should get rid of my personal Info on my page?...and why is that?..ha it's not like someone is going to track me down and stalk me....right?

Decline reason:

The article you created discusses the violent murder of someone who, as far as I can tell using google, has not been murdered. A quote from it: "Melissa died due to having her organs ripped out of her and by having Battery Acid poured on her face." An indefinite block would have been reasonable; considering your edit history so far, I think you should wait out your block and then demonstrate that you won't make similar edits in the future. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Melissa: Okay,so then In that case you are correct.I should be carefull on editing such articles as people who have been murder.But...I hope u realized that was only for Practical editing.

Decline reason:

Your block has already been reduced. I'd suggest waiting it out at this point, and returning to make constructive edits once it has expired. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I need some help:

when u want to edit a page or a page on a famous person...who is the one that looks it over and tells u whether or not what u post is correct?

Canadasprincess 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Melissa.

Everyone. That is, everyone reviews everyone else's edits. There's no formality to it. Here's some information that might explain it a bit better than I can: WP:OFAQ#Who is responsible for the articles on Wikipedia?, WP:OFAQ#How do you know if the information is correct? -- Ned Scott 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Melissa mancini august 2008.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Melissa mancini august 2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: versus User talk: namespace[edit]

Hiya. Just a quick note, you edited edited someone else's User: page as opposed to their User talk: page. No worries, though, as it's a common mistake for newcomers. :D Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes slakr,Thats right...Id just thought of apologizing after what happened,thats all.