User talk:Master133

March 2009[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Laurie Brett, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia, if you think material is unsuitable for inclusion please disucss the matter on article talk. Also it appears you are also editing from an IP address, please ensure you always log in to avoid accusations of disruptive editing or sockpuppetry. Mfield (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On discussion[edit]

You cannot continue to edit without engaging in any discussion. This encyclopedia is based on community participation and consensus and if you do not engage with other editors or participate on article talk, your reasons for making edits and changes cannot be understood. You have once again removed content from the article despite being asked to explain your actions. Further removals at this point without discussion or edit summaries will be taken in bad faith. If you need help please ask. Mfield (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Failure to engage, removal of sourced content without explanation.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Brett[edit]

it would be so much easier if you explained the reasons for the removal of the sourced content, instead of continuously blanking. You will just end up getting blocked again. Use the article's discussion page.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is incorrect? The information is sourced. Do you have evidence to dispute the sources? If so, please include and you will be free to remove without anyone minding. You can edit the page as much as you like, it's just that you are removing information and not explaining why.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is incorrect, you need to prove it with sources. I'm sorry, but wikipedia wont just take your word for it, that's not how this place works. You need to back things you claim up with sources. Currently, the article is sourced, you are trying to remove its only source with no evidence to say your stance is correct.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the sourced info from the personal life section unless you have a source disputing it. If you continue to engage in edit warring you may be blocked.GunGagdin ^Moan 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editing on Laurie Brett isn't getting anywhere. Please discuss at Talk:Laurie Brett. Gimmetrow 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isnt just going to be removed because you want it that way. You have to show why it is no longer relevant or accurate. You dont seem to understand how wikipedia works and I suggest you do some research because you will end up being blocked if you continue. Leave the sourced information in, unless you have a source suggesting it is inaccurate. Do some research on the web and find a source.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Laurie Brett has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Cirt (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) - please engage in discussion at Talk:Laurie Brett after the block expires. If the disruption continues, you may be blocked for a longer period of time. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Laurie Brett.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Laurie Brett.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Laurie-Brett-1595914.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Laurie-Brett-1595914.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Laurie Brett, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The link states that she's Aries, but it doesn't state what her date of birth is. How can we change her date of birth if we don't know it? The BBC and DS are the only websites stating that she is Aries, how do you know it's not an error on their websites? That has happened before. Finally, comments like this don't belong on the main wiki page, please discuss issues like this at Talk:Laurie Brett. Thanks 5 albert square (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, unfortunately it is not possible for us to add the date and month as we can't seem to get this. I actually escalated this, and my findings to one of the admins on Wikipedia before, and it was decided to change her date of birth to just the year of birth because we cannot get anything more accurate. There is an interview on DS with John Partridge, and he says that Laurie is an Aries. I told the admin about this and he said it was ok to accept this, wasn't sure if I could do this before as John didn't actually mention any date of birth! --5 albert square (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone needs to find out the real date of birth and add it someone needs to add the month and day of birth

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Laurie Brett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. As you can see from the above warning, you were one of the ones who pointed out to us that her date of birth may be wrong. I researched it and found an interview with John Partridge that INDICATED that she was Aries. After a discussion with admin, we decided to change her article to read just the year as we cannot find anything to state that she has an Aries date of birth! If you can find a reference to state her true date of birth please edit the article with this along with the referenced source. Until then please do not change her date of birth back to read 2 May as we cannot be sure that this is true. 5 albert square (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Laurie Brett. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. There is currently an on-going discussion about the addition of this information to her article at Talk: Laurie Brett with one editor that is currently not happy about her article not being updated. Please join in the discussion there. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter. 5 albert square (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Laurie Brett, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Beale[edit]

I don't know if you realised but when you edited Jane Beale to complain about an error, you could have just corrected it youself. It would have saved both time and effort, since I had to revert your edits and then correct the error. Try being bold next time! Even if you don't want to do that, comments about errors should go on the talk page, not in the article, thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Laurie Brett. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion and the link provided for Laurie Brett. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. The reference that you pointed out that needed fixing at Laurie Brett could have been fixed simply by referencing it in the article. To enable proper citation of references go into your 'my preferences' section, select 'gadgets', tick the box "refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates" which appears under the editing gadgets section and then click save. Now, when you want to cite an article, go to the page that you want to add the reference to and go to edit it. Now when you're editing you will see a tool box appear at the top of the editing box, at the far right hand corner of this tool box you will see a box with the word "CITE" on it. Click on this and select what you want to cite, eg online newspaper articles go under "web". Fill in all the information that's necessary (language does not need to be added unless it is a foreign language) and click on "add citation". --5 albert square (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding links to articles by just dumping the links in the article and not bothering to reference them like you did at Jane Beale. This isn't how they're to be used. I've already explained to you above how to cite them properly and given you a step-by-step instruction how to do it. We don't know what you want to use your references to cite! Please do this or you may find that your edits are simply reversed --5 albert square (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please can you remain logged in all the time. Do not log in to edit a semi-protected page, then log out to make demands on the talk page. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master133, you're still adding comments and removing them. If you think you should be unblocked, use the {{unblock}} template. If you add another comment and remove it, I'll block you from editing this page and then you won't be able to make an unblock request and you'll have no chance of ever being unblocked. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you unblock me

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).

Master133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason

Decline reason:

You need to state a reason as to why you are appealing your block (that is, replace reason with your appeal). –MuZemike 18:29, 15 February 2010 (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 will follow the rules this time so can i be unblocked also can you remove the part saying shes signed up for another year

You need to use the {{unblock}} template again, but instead of the word reason you need to type the reason you think you should be unblocked. Then someone will review it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been editing the articles Laurie Brett and Jane Beale for over a year; long enough to learn the proper manner in which to contribute. That you do not indicates a lack of desire to conform with the Wikipedia process, and I have therefore removed your editing privileges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now blocked from editing this talk page as you ignored my instructions. That means you cannot make a request to be unblocked. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you add this interview in jane beales page http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/interviews/a64153/laurie-brett.html

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Master133 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. 5 albert square (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (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).

Master133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i will follow the rules this time so can i be unblocked i will follow the rules this time i promise

Decline reason:

Adding this in the middle of your talk page was a bit confusing; it's better to put new comments at the bottom. No, I can't unblock, because saying 'I will follow the rules' doesn't give sufficient information for me to determine whether you understand the rules or have a plan for following them. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 15 February 2010 (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.