User talk:Mtracy9

License tagging for Image:Goebbels9.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Goebbels9.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ferrie

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to David Ferrie. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 08:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please havea a look at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before you continue. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Jack Ruby. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warnings. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ciravolo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ciravolo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Lee Harvey Oswald

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith

Please do not vandalize my talk page further by placing bogus 3RR tags. I made one revert. If you act in bad faith again, I will have no choice but to report you to Arbcom Enforcement. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Considering your recent edit warring at Trial of Clay Shaw, I have filed a report agaisnt you here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring and disruption. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ: Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. 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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 6 June 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).

Mtracy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The administrator, Ramsquire has attempted to link me with a previous editor, RPJ who, from what I gather, was previously blocked. Ramsquire says that my actions "mirror" those of RPJ. However, Ramsquire provides no proof of this, and little evidence. He accuses me of edit warring. However, since I have been made aware of the 3 revert rule, I have been sure to keep within its limits. He accuses me of vandalizing his page. In fact, I merely posted a copy to the 3 revert rule to his page after he did the same to my page. I did, however, make a mistake in posting this to his main page, instead of his talk page. This was a honest mistake; I am somewhat new to this. Ramsquire further says that I acted impolitely by using the word "bogus" in describing another editor's remarks. In fact, a synonym for the word "bogus" is "not genuine" -- hardly an impolite word. However, since Ramsquire considers "bogus" to be impolite, I will refrain from using it in the future.

Decline reason:

Since this block is per ArbCom sanctions in an existing case and involves allegations of sockpuppetry, it should be resolved at a higher level, perhaps via the email list. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:10, 18 June 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).

Mtracy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The administrator, Ramsquire has attempted to link me with a previous editor, RPJ who, from what I gather, was previously blocked. Ramsquire says that my actions "mirror" those of RPJ. However, there is no foundation for this charge, and Ramsquire provides no evidence. He accuses me of edit warring. However, since I have been made aware of the 3 revert rule, I have been sure to keep within its limits. He accuses me of vandalizing his page. In fact, I merely posted a copy to the 3 revert rule to his page after he did the same to my page. I did, however, make a mistake in posting this to his main page, instead of his talk page. This was a honest mistake; I am somewhat new to this. Ramsquire further says that I acted impolitely by using the word "bogus" in describing another editor's remarks. In fact, a synonym for the word "bogus" is "not genuine" -- hardly an impolite word. However, since Ramsquire considers "bogus" to be impolite, I will refrain from using it in the future.

Decline reason:

Please contact a member of the Arbitration Committee directly via email, all of their email addresses are listed at WP:ARBCOM. Please provide reference to this block, and explain your situation there. Thank you. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 19 June 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.

Comment for User Mtracy9: as per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Not an entitlement, being "sure to keep within its limits" (quote from both unblock requests above) is known as gaming the system (see #4 in the Examples section) and is strongly discouraged. — Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lee Harvey Oswald, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. We've been here before; we do not need to go there again. Discuss this issue on the Talk page, or suffer sanctions. Up to you. There are numerous dispute resolution processes here, but single-mindedness is not one of them. Rodhull andemu 23:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Your previous one-year block and recent warnings do not appear to have got the message across that you cannot just remove content without achieving consensus. Since you again show no sign of abating this behaviour, you are blocked indefinitely unless and until you give an indication to collaborate constructively. I will also note this block at the related ArbCom case.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhull andemu 23:17, 7 February 2011 (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).

Mtracy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to Wikipedia rules "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Therefore, I have not committed vandalism. My previous additions of content were removed before consensus was achieved, so the argument that I cannot remove content, without achieving consensus, sets a double-standard.

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for vandalism. 狐 FOX 23:48, 7 February 2011 (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.

Mark Tracy (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (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).

Mtracy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Rodhullandemu's waring: "This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lee Harvey Oswald, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." Therefore, the question must be asked -- if I am not being blocked for vandalism, then why was vandalism given for the reason by the administrator Rodhullandemu? Mark Tracy (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not his block rationale. This is. "Your previous one-year block and recent warnings do not appear to have got the message across that you cannot just remove content without achieving consensus. Since you again show no sign of abating this behaviour, you are blocked indefinitely unless and until you give an indication to collaborate constructively. I will also note this block at the related ArbCom case." This is also not a standard unblock request. 狐 FOX 00:35, 8 February 2011 (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).

Mtracy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If removing content is disallowed without achieving consensus, then why do Wiki administrators set a bad example by doing exactly that? Example: "20:42, 6 February 2011 Gamaliel, External links: rm some conspiracy links." And since Wiki administrators on the Oswald page are violating Wiki policy, how do I file a complaint, specifically against the administrator Gamaliel? Mark Tracy (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please discuss issues without additional unblock requests. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:01, 8 February 2011 (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.

Edit the arbitration request section, copy-paste the following template:

<Insert the case name>

Initiated by Mark Tracy (talk) at 07:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

mtracy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link 1
Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

below the first header (

) and click save/submit.