User talk:MaskedHero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:TempName1)
Jump to: navigation, search

I wonder why you consider me editing history related articles,we must accept the theory which is approved by majority of this case the leading historian are agrees on the fact that BANDA SINGH BAHADUR was a rajpoot ,not a brahmin.i will keep continue to correct it. thnx.

If you are able to find a Reliable source stating that then feel free to add the matierial. Due to the sensitivity of a Biography of living persons we must make sure all facts are correct and are able to be verified through a reliable source. I will leave you a message on your talk page with steps on editing wikipedia and making sure your edits fit our policy. If you are unable to find a reliable source and still feel the information should be added to the article, feel free to start a discussion on the articles talk page. TempName1 (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello, TempName1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello brand-new editor--keep up the good work. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment: On the 19th of April 2012 he removed the "i" in the article like he did just recently. 1. It wasn't until the 9th of march 2013 almost a year later this editor came back and fixed it 2. Nine days later he edited Mandawuy Yunupingu changing his first name in the article to Mandaway 3. Finally he made two edits removing the i off the name of another subject: 4 and 5. Since this user has engaged in the same unconstructive edit activity for a year and has made no other constructive edits it is hard to assume good faith. Considering the long history of vandalism (a month shy of a year) and his only constructive edit was pressing a button to create his userpage would make this account a vandalism only account, which is blockable without getting to all four warnings. Thanks TempName1 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
These edits are not blatantly malicious. For example, changing the spelling to Mandaway is not a far stretch [1]. The same can be said for Yothu Yindi [2]. We may be dealing with an uninformed or immature editor. This is a good case of WP:BITE. No one has tried to engage the editor. The first contact was a canned warning followed five minutes later with an AIV report. Not appropriate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

New Section[edit]

Hi, the edits I am making (results in majors on golfers' pages) are NOT sourced, never have been, nor need be. you removing them is remarkably idiotic. wtf man. do you even look at what's happening or just send stupid messages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a set of guidelines to follow to cite a reliable source if your going to randomly change numbers. I did a quick google search and didnt find anything to support your claim. MaskedHero (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

what? try harder, geez. i'm not randomly changing numbers, that's insanity. i am adding in the results for those who have missed the cut at this week's Master's tournament, based on this: (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to add this in for you as a reference: <ref name=leaderboard>{{cite web|title=2013 Masters Tournament|url=|work=majorchampionships|publisher=PGA TOUR, Inc.|accessdate=13 April 2013}}</ref> MaskedHero (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my edit for david freud, I edited the page content when I saw a wiki page that I deemed to have aggressive wording I have re-edited to maintain the appearance of free speech by removing the words civil disobedience action which are aggressive words for a peaceful protest which in turn is a form of free speech which you claim to uphold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echelon1981 (talkcontribs) 08:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

New Section[edit]

Hey fuck bag, stop changing my edit. No where on the page is reliable source cited. The sources cited are all from the bible. That is not how to cite an article. You cannot cite the bible to prove the bible. HELLO.

There is no need for personal attacks on the wiki. If you feel the article should be deleted or you want to make a change to a article that appears disruptive please discuss the change or nominate the page for deletion. If you want help doing either just let me know and I will be happy to help. Happy editing! MaskedHero (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP[edit]

The account is a vandalism only IP inserting spam on numerous articles. I'm reporting him. JK (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We usually dont block vandal only IPs. Accounts only MaskedHero (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What gave you that idea? Of course IPs are blocked. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Admins on IRC and listening to discussion is exactly what told me that we don't block vandal only IPs and that we must follow the warning system, even if its just a 4im then a block. Jayakrishnan reverted for vandalism and reported right away without any alert or message sent to this person, so how would that be fair to block a person without a simple warning. So a few questions for you: How can we call an ip address (that may be dynamic) a vandal only IP if it could change? And why do you feel it is acceptable to block an ip as a vandal only ip if there hadn't been any warnings for this person to stop making abusive edits? I can find the policy for voa accounts at WP:VOA, but WP:VOI or any variants I tried came up empty, so where is the polciy on vandal only ips with no warnings that should be blocked? MaskedHero (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, MH. IP addresses are regularly blocked to prevent vandalism, copyright violations, violation of the BLP policy and general disruption. Generally speaking, we do not block IP addresses indefinitely. We don't call an IP address a vandal; it's the user accessing through the address that is the vandal. Thus the general prohibition of emplying the indefinite block periods for IP addresses. It is always best to warn IP users (or, registered users that are new) that vandlaism can jeopardize their editing privilege before reporting them. If they are serious with regard to editing here they will change; if their intent is simple mischief, I find that one or two warnings bores the miscreant into finding new outlets for their entertainment. Tiderolls 20:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks Tide rolls that is a different perspective into the issue. MaskedHero (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of user warnings[edit]

Hello. Consider this as a final warning for removal of warning messages given to another user. If you do feel the warning was too stern, then please be courteous and discuss with the user who issued the warning. If you repeat, I'll report you. Thanks,  Abhishek  Talk 12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to link an article about civility to me, I was very civil about this action, and I will still strongly stick by my actions. As far as this goes the contributor was making constructive edits and was frustrated that they got reverted, so he lashed out. Was this appropriate? No (which I had told him in his message), but does it deserve a message this is so Bitey? No I don't believe so. I had reason to believe that this user could be a valuable member of wikipedia and a valuable editor so I removed the template (since 4im has very very strong lettering) and left a message to both that user and the the person who warned the user. If you feel you need to report me go ahead, I did absolutely nothing wrong. My intentions were to NOT run away a potential editor by this stern template. Now to address why I am explaining that my actions are within policy, first off I informed the original warning party that I removed it (he re-added it, and notice i didn't re-remove it) once the original warning party put it back. Quite simply I've been around Wikipedia since 2007 and have never once used this policy until yesterday, but WP:IAR sums it up. With that template we are impeding the improvement of articles this person was interested in. So to sum it all up, you can feel free to report me but my actions are justified. MaskedHero (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion appreciated[edit]

Feel free to voice your opinion here. --Philippe Jackson (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)