User talk:76.102.49.177

October 2012

I noticed the message you recently left to Dopaa. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that was quite a dopey vandal... -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nation Awakes Movie

Hello 76.102.49.177, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nation Awakes Movie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bowling Dead

I'am contesting this deletion. Talk page has my input. Thank you. --Yek2iop (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Mediran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Real Love (Lady GaGa song) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 01:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi 76..., I noticed that you redirected an article or two and were reverted. You might think about nominating them for deletion if your redirection is challenged again. I can nominate it for you, if you'd like (IPs technically can't create a new deletion nomination). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 01:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that's fair enough

Yup, your edits here removed obvious promo. Cheers Tonywalton ^Talk 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Article

Hello friend, me I quiestion why you delete the information if I put on the MK article?, i want the article to be Good Article but i can't doing if you're erasing everything if I get, but if you have a good reason let me know and I will offer an apology. I wish you a Happy New Year.--TheJoker Was Here! 01:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate. I removed text from the lede that gives a false impression about the scope of the article. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you may be right but my native language is Spanish, and not what else could put to complete the article, but hey, you can help me, it would be easier if your native language is English. Greetings.--TheJoker Was Here! 02:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking after my talk page. Season's greetings. Jschnur (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Explained politely what can be edited by who. Thank you. Plingtoys (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping out on explaining "Conflict of Interest". Happy New Year, and the best of luck to you. I'd consider making an account if I were you - you seem to be a valuable editor!

Bailmoney27 (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 76.102.49.177. You have new messages at Bailmoney27's talk page.
Message added 07:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bailmoney27 (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

reporting at UAA

In future, if you encounter other users with promotional usernames/post ads on Wikipedia, you can report them at WP:UAA. :) Cheers, Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, but it's usually not worth the trouble. In my experience, most either stop on their own or are discovered by admins. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

THANKS FOR REVERTING

Hi, I am (talk), i noticed that you had recently undo-wed my newly edited article VLC Media Player to make it as current page. I AM REALLY THANKFUL FOR YOUR DOING THE NEEDFUL. —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, i am Himanis, i noticed that you had recently undo-wed my newly edited article VLC Media Player to make it as current page. I AM REALLY THANKFUL FOR YOUR DOING THE NEEDFUL. Himanis Das (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at VLC media player. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

What?!? I reverted blanking/vandalism on that page, twice. That's all I did. Look at the edits again please. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What?!? I reverted blanking/vandalism on that page, twice. That's all I did. Look at the edits again please. [[Special:Contributions/76.102.49.177|76.102.49.177]] ([[User talk:76.102.49.177#top|talk]]) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=What?!? I reverted blanking/vandalism on that page, twice. That's all I did. Look at the edits again please. [[Special:Contributions/76.102.49.177|76.102.49.177]] ([[User talk:76.102.49.177#top|talk]]) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=What?!? I reverted blanking/vandalism on that page, twice. That's all I did. Look at the edits again please. [[Special:Contributions/76.102.49.177|76.102.49.177]] ([[User talk:76.102.49.177#top|talk]]) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) I'll confess that a block, especially a week-long block, does seem a bit harsh, when 76.102 was reverting a user with an inappropriate username, and when, given the lack of an edit summary in the most recent edit before his first revert (the edit 76.102 would've seen in Special:RecentChanges, Special:Tags, or the like), it seems quite plausible to assume that xe was unaware xe was restoring copyright-infringing material. That's a mistake many, many editors have made. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified the blocking admin and asked that he review the block. I don't have an opinion one way or another as of now, but the IP does raise some reasonable points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. While I did see edit summaries about the "copyright situation," those summaries were attached to edits that did nothing more than change the image size. Since it's patently obvious that there could be no copyvio on the size of images, and given User:Marstarbartion already had a notable history of false claims and hostility, I saw his edits as deliberate vandalism under the cover of misleading summaries. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Todd is a good guy and fair minded, he will review once he sees the notice. There may be more than I know here, which is why I don't want to jump the gun and assume anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would look very closely at the edit history of that specific article - some odd things (including an SPI report) going on around there ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)