User talk:MXM

g'day!

Welcome!

Hello MXM, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rutherford

I'm again removing the speculation on character deaths, as per the standards applied by the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially sections 1.3, 1.7. and 1.8, particulary 1.8.3. Your own edit summary on the page for Sawyer admits that it is speculation, and thus by those page standards, should be removed. That is not an NPoV stance, it is Wikipedia policy. I also would invite you to review the sections Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and, in light of your belief that its OK to attack people in edit summaries, WP:NPA, most notably the line "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Thank you. Baryonyx 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that calling another editor not NPoV, especially when I have a fairly strong reputation on the Lost pages for being NPoV, is a personal attack, most especially when it is permanently enshrined on the edit summary for the page. It calls into question someone's objectivity (which, while never perfect, can be pretty good) and their integrity, something I personally take very seriously. But, I also feel that Wikipedia gets along best when we get along, so I'm willing to forget it and move on. That said, I can understand what makes one think Sawyer's going to be the one to die... in fact, Jack's probably going to need to make a choice on which one he can most effectively treat, and the other will not make it. However, the central point remains: anything about that is speculation that won't be answered for at least a week, and possibly two, since Matthew Fox has said none of the season 1 cast will be in next week's episode. Since its speculation, it shouldn't be placed on the main page, but feel free to discuss it with me on a talk page, or with the whole Lost editing community on the discussion pages. Thank you for your response. Baryonyx 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Grover

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Gazpacho 06:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gazpacho 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Removing an Articles for Deletion banner is vandalism. Gazpacho 07:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Waterloo

Incidentally, his distinction in Mathematics isn't noted anywhere in his own article. Furthermore, I'd like to know how it was possible for him to become an alumnus at the age of 20, when according to you he died -- last I checked a math degree took four years.

My comment about inserting untrue edit summaries, although removed by you, stands. --Qviri 07:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the murder story was true (which I doubt severely, as the student body would hear about this -- especially the Laurier part -- if he was murdered at 20, he was in his third year, so he hasn't graduated and wasn't an alumnus. --Qviri 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why the section is entitled "Famous Alumni and Faculty". --Qviri 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. I'm on campus right now and I've never heard of the guy. Neither have three of my friends I asked, and that's only people present online at 2:30 AM. If he was murdered by Laurier players, we would have heard about it. --Qviri 07:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Men of your caliber, perhaps. End of Topic for me, please do not bother replying. --Qviri 07:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You speak with big words, none of which are true. I encourage you to stop vandalizing wikipedia and make useful edits that will improve articles. Maybe you think this is funny, but it's actually quite boring. Do you have so little to do that you have to perpetuate nonsense to make yourself feel as though you are important? I can see you're a smart person, but I suggest that you change your behaviour before you wind up with a permanent ban. And if that's your goal, there is a much easier way to ban yourself from this website: never come here. It's that easy. -- Rediahs 07:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit as other people

Please do not vote for AFDs and sign as someone else [1]. - Akamad 08:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for one month for the following actions: abusive edit summaries, false/misleading edit summaries, impersonating Jimbo Wales. DS 16:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future punishments such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

Replaced text of the user page with the {{indefblockeduser}} template. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LizaFromer2.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:LizaFromer2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LD0O.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LD0O.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]