User talk:StevenMario

This user will never forget.

Per the userbox migration, {{User autistic}} was moved to {{User:UBX/User autistic}}.

This user comes from the U.S. state of Georgia.

Proposed deletion of Pingu episodes removed from rotation

The article Pingu episodes removed from rotation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, possible hoax

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Super Mario Bros. (film) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; 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 for further information. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User:WikiLubber. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:TJ Spyke. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Apparently you have not actually READ WP:3RR. I have made 1 revert in the last 24 hours, you have made 2 and have been making false threats. Be careful or you may get blocked. TJ Spyke 18:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

Regarding your recent contributions to the article, please keep in mind that the Wii article already has a section about sales. The "Sales decline" section has been merged into the "System sales" section. Feel free to contact me or visit Talk:Wii if you have any concerns. just64helpin (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that blogs are not notable sources, as per WP:NOTABILITY. The blog sources that you have added in the Wii's sales section have been deleted.Commandr Cody (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on saying Nintendo has released only 3 Wii games in the US this year is annoying because it is false. Nintendo has released the following Wii games in the US so far this year: New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis, New Play Control! Pikmin, New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Punch-Out!!, Wii Sports Resort, Metroid Prime: Trilogy, Wii Fit Plus, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Excitebots: Trick Racing. That's 9 games. TJ Spyke 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Power Play Controls do not count. If they did, they would have a reception, but they didn't. They're just remakes. StevenMario (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They DO count. Also, STOP adding a Decline section. You are the ONLY one who thinks it needs to exist, the consensus from everyone else is that it doesn't need its own section. Keep doing it and you will get warnings and maybe a block. TJ Spyke 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're as valid as any Nintendo-published game. Not all games get their own articles, but that doesn't make them any less of a game. Reach Out to the Truth 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes don't really count actually. It's just the same game only with different controls. In order to "un-confuse" that, I put "excluding the New Play Control! remakes" on there, just in case. Also, a decline section must be needed because people need to know where the information is, if you know what I mean. StevenMario (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what you mean. What's it supposed to mean? Any information in the article should already be available. Any claim, especially one so bold as that, needs be backed up by reliable sources. Do any sources claim that these declines in sales are in any way significant or a problem, or is this just a WP:SYNTHESIS? The claim that ports don't count is certainly original research, and the rest doesn't sit well with me either. Reach Out to the Truth 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Show

I appreciate and can vouch for you edits to the Mario Show article.

However, why is the rest of the talk page criticizing your contributions?

If it's about the citation needed reason, that is a must. It really helps out when a source, not a blog or somebody's word-of-mouth, but something that is proven like three times over, is used, that way debate is quelled and the article can progress.

Coffee5binky (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Orphan

Hi. Please don't add comments to articles threatening users with being blocked. If a user is vandalizing the article, a better course of action is to place warnings of increasing severity on the user's talk page. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it was an I.P. user StevenMario (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-IP editors receive warning messages just like logged-in users, and the IP can be blocked if the user doesn't comply. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring suspects

Two people keep reverting edits, claiming that they are specific, which they aren't. Please stop and do not command me to stop, or you two will be reported StevenMario (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were nothing more than over-elaboration, and it is not allowed. WikiLubber (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing. I could stand your disruptive edits no more, so I have reported you. See here. WikiLubber (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself lucky. The evidence I provided was not enough. WikiLubber (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try you stinker, but they are NOT disruptive! Here's an example of long and specific information: see these examples:

Ballot Box Bunny#Censorship
Rabbit Fire#Censorship
Bushy Hare#Censorship
Big House Bunny#Censorship
Bugs' Bonnets#Censorship

Also, you are the one that is edit warring, so stop, and it is NOT over-elaboration. IT IS SPECIFIC. StevenMario (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people names and telling lies is only going to get you banned, so do not do it. You're behaving very immaturely. CBFan (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SHUT UP CBFAN! YOU ARE NOT IN THIS CONVERSATION! StevenMario (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBFan knows what he's doing! WikiLubber (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you nicely not to behave like that. What part of "Please do not behave this way" are you incapable of understanding? CBFan (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the other way around. WikiLubber (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network Debate

TheRealFennShysa keeps reverting my edits because he keeps reverting my edits on Dog Trouble, stating that the networks are "not needed". There must be networks on there to make the page specific. If he keeps doing this, I will report him edit warring.StevenMario (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign your comment.

And another thing. TheRealFennShysa was doing his duty. He was fixing all your edits. You need sources. Not your head. WikiLubber (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I DO have sources! StevenMario (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are not always reliable. WikiLubber (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not fan sites. The Looney Tunes cartoons that have censorship sections have sources like I used on the Tom and Jerry cartoons. Here's one example. StevenMario (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age Cartoons is most definitely a fan site. It specifically states "This is an unofficial site" on this page. And the pages you're linking to by way of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine don't even appear on the current site. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is over-elaboration. Syndication says it all in short. WikiLubber (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allthough you both maybe right, some of those people on that site might have been experts on censored cartoons. StevenMario (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As true as that may be, there is no proof that any of the people on that site are experts. And no matter whether they are experts or not, it is still a fan site. WikiLubber (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast syndication refers to a program offered to a various channel or station, allthough it could also be offered to networks. StevenMario (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of you at the Administrators' Notice Board (incidents)

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. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break tomorrow

It's Christmas Eve tomorrow, and I'm taking a break! MERRY CHRISTMAS! StevenMario (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hop and Go

I need assistance on this page! Anyone is gullible to help please help! StevenMario (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion about you

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. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StevenMario_and_ownership_issues. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy list

I'd urge you to remove the "enemy-list" from your userpage. This is not contributing to a constructive editing environment here. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add, if you refuse to remove it, your page is liable to be nominated for deletion. Thanks in advance for your co-operation. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556's suggestion at WP:ANI, I've removed it for him. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Secondly, hardly anyone is giving you "commands" around here as you assert on the top of this page. As far as I can tell, you are merely being made aware of wikipedia's policies; ignoring them could very well get you blocked, eventually. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MGM vault fires

So far I only know one MGM vault fire, which was back in 1965. Millions of silent films were lost. Were there any other vault fires? We should make a page about those fires. StevenMario (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly encourage you to create a page on this as this is something of value. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StevenMario for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

I know that you are young, so you might not understand the gravity of this situation. If it is discovered that these are your socks, you will be blocked along with the IPs. If these are your IPs, and you admit to it, they will be blocked, but you will be allowed to edit as long as you agree to not use other accounts again without declaring them. I am neutral in this, and I only created the SPI at the request of another user. I am willing to help you if you have any questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to log on when I edit, so it is hard to explain that. StevenMario (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can comment on the investigation page. It is hard to explain that, but I can understand where you are coming from. A clerk there only said that the only linking is behavioral evidence, but feel free to tell him that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to read this version of the SPI case, especially J.delanoy's comment. Best regards, NW (Talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Super Show

For the songs in the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, a "cover version" of popular songs has not be used in any of the DVD releases of THIS particular Mario cartoon series. The series in question is The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 that was packaged with the Captain N releases. Just letting you know so you stop editing with the improper and incorrect information. I also have MANY VHS and Betamax tapes with the original broadcast airings of Super Mario Bros. Super Show from 1989 to 1991 and the Shout! Factory DVDs, so trust me, I know first-hand. Coffee5binky (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. (film)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Super Mario Bros. (film). Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced additions

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to What Price Porky. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to What_Price_Porky. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu. WikiLubber (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on What_Price_Porky. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on What Price Porky. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

In addition, you have now been reported for violating the 3RR rule. Should you care to defend yourself (although it will do little good, as you are in clear violation of the rules, you can find it at the edit warring noticeboard. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you from editing for one day. Please when this expires present reliable sources at Talk:What Price Porky in support of your points. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Daffy - The Commando. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Daffy - The Commando. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. You're seriously courting another block with your continued reversions. Consider yourself warned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 31 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not vandalizing pages nor am I edit-warring or assuming ownership. I am 14 years old and I am autistic, and I am NOT MascotGuy. There are no original sources for cartoons, so I suggest we remove All pages about cartoons, and TheRealFennShysa has removed all the sections from The Little Orphan, and that is vandalism. I'm planning to undo that revision because the source is the cartoon itself.

Decline reason:

You seem quite confused; you indeed immediately returned to edit warring after the release of a block for the same. You also seem to be declaring that you will continue this behavior on another article if unblocked. I would strongly encourage you to read our policy on this at WP:EDITWAR during your time out; should you actually continue this when your block expires, the next one will be for a much longer period. Kuru ^talk 00:19, 1 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not edit-warring. We need to delete ALL cartoon pages. If this debate will not end, end it! AND I AM NOT TAKING ORDERS FROM ANYONE! Also, you guys are all making me mad. IF YOU GUYS DO NOT STOP, I WILL GET VERY MAD! YOU GUYS NEVER ASSUME GOOD FAITH!

Decline reason:

This is not a request for unblocking. It does not acknowledge the reason for the block, nor does it indicate that you have a plan to edit differently in the future. An unblock would therefore not be useful. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 1 January 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.

Upon expiration of your previous block, you immediately returned to edit warring without seeking consensus at the relevant talkpage. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; this is not optional. I also caution that you seem to be engaging in original research without reference to reliable sources. Every statement here should be directly traceable to a particular source, and adding your own unsourced impressions or conclusions detracts from the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 31 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just want to make this site more long and specific, but it is impossible to find an original source for cartoons. So I suggest we remove ALL pages related to cartoon films, if this debate will never end.

Decline reason:

You appear to be focussed on one particular path of action, which has already been pointed out to be not acceptable. I do not believe that, if unblocked, you will refrain from edit warring. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:38, 1 January 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.

January 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Old Rockin' Chair Tom. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. PLEASE read the guidelines, StevenMario. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Gus Wickie. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This even applies to AfDs your create - let the process run its course. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been causing all kinds of vandalism to the Super Mario Bros. Super Show article after I and WikiLubber put the effort to clean it up. I don't know who to contact, but I need somebody to lock that article and to block or ban this user because the information reads like a fanzine when he adds it. Also, I don't buy the "autism" claim, as the children I know with autism can't do the things he's doing. I'm not going to get into my personal beliefs, for that's neither here nor there. I don't appreciate somebody wrecking an article purposely, then go around claiming to have a disease/condition and playing victim. It's rude. Coffee5binky (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have autism, but I'M still contributing. CBFan (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to that. WikiLubber (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. Autism or any other ailments/illness a person suffers i there to be overcome towards success. Coffee5binky (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many autistic people can and do edit Wikipedia. As long as they are able to follow Wikipedia's rules; they're welcome here. I've welcomed people with autism who did good and useful work- and I've blocked people with autism who edited disruptively. And I appreciate when people with autism are open about it, because it's useful information if either of us becomes confused or annoyed by the other. People don't so much 'overcome' autism as just learn to work with it... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has struck again, and changed all edits that were made by me this morning that cleaned up the Super Mario Bros. Super Show article. This kid should be banned from using Wikipedia anymore, as he's not following the rules and is engaged with edit warring. Coffee5binky (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user wants to engage in edit warring, and has accused me of "owning" the Mario Show article. I don't own that article, I simply repair the damage this IMBECILIC MORON (that's StevenMario) keeps creating on the site. I seriously encourage somebody to ban him and his IPs from Wikipedia. Also, it seems he's just as destructive at other articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee5binky (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption to Wikipedia, particularly cartoon related articles. 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. NJA (t/c) 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin notes: Aside from your propensity to edit war, your comments 1 2 3 on this talk page made prior to your recent disruption made it quite clear that you have no intention to comply with editing guidelines, and further enemy lists such as this demonstrate an ineptitude to work collaboratively. NJA (t/c) 09:07, 7 January 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).

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

Request reason:

unknown reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 21:07, 10 January 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.

Possible block evasion

StevenMario may be trying to evade his block by editing without logging in. 68.223.54.247 made quite a few edits last night that match up to StevenMario's past edit patterns, and this new IP geolocates to the same area as all of the IPs found at his previous sockpuppet investigation, and noted in my ANI report. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's a few others: 68.223.43.226, 68.219.221.114, 68.223.43.138, and 68.217.90.245 so far... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take this to WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just building up the case, Bugs... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

StevenMario (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'retired' template is useful, for users who've decided to stop editing Wikipedia, so their fellow editors will know that they won't be logging on or responding to messages. For this account, 'indefinitely blocked' is more accurate, and in any case, since you have not yet stopped avoiding your block and editing, you haven't 'retired' in any meaningful sense of the word. The best course of action for you is to stop editing Wikipedia, stop changing templates on your userpage, stop avoiding your block, and simply find another web site on which to enjoy your internet time. Facebook is fun. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Hello, my name is StevenMario, and I just wanted to apologize and tell you all that I will stop vandalising. I am autistic, and I want to be respected, not disrespected. I'm trying to help out Wikipedia, but none of you won't agree. I'll stop whatever I'm doing, and I don't want to get blamed for everything. I'm trying to be nice here. StevenMario (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|1=I will stop adding original research and start helping out.}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You get this one last chance. If you are blocked again for the same behavior, it will not be lifted.

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

StevenMario (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this user couldn't even keep the "promise" in his unblock request for one day - he claims that he will stop adding original research, and yet this afternoon he violated his indef block by not logging in and editing You're a Sap, Mr. Jap from the IPs 68.218.33.70 and 68.219.240.20, adding nothing but unreferenced original research. His other edits today have also been, for the most part, unreferenced statements or changes. I seriously doubt he will change his editing patterns, so the block should not be lifted. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I AM AUTISTIC. I'm trying to find sources for the so called "original research", but you just keep removing that stuff. Just wait for crying out loud. WAIT! You don't immediately remove unreferenced things on sight. Just wait and maybe I can help, but you won't beleive me. Do you have iTunes? If you do, search in "You're a Sap Mr. Jap" and viola, the "a" in "Jap" is censored. Also, you must assume good faith when reverting unsourced changes. StevenMario (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock proposal

Steven, I'd like to give you another chance, but as noted above there are concerns about the reality of your request. You've either resumed the behaviour after a block ended, or simply used IP socks to evade blocks. Further, whilst you say you'll stop vandalising and adding original research, you also say that you'll "stop doing whatever I'm doing", which to me signals you still don't get why you're blocked. Thus, before we can consider proceeding with an unblock I need to know three things from you:

which articles on Wikipedia you plan to improve and how
exactly (step by step if possible) how you'd proceed in the future should you find yourself in a dispute with someone that seems to be progressing into an edit war
an agreement by you not to revert an article more than once in a 24 hour period. Any breach of that restriction would result in an immediate block (the only exemption to your 1 revert in a 24 hour period would be reverting clear vandalism, copyright violations or defamation of a living person).

We await your response to these queries, NJA (t/c) 08:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop doing this, and I'm not adding original reasearch. I'm trying to find a source for that. StevenMario (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I'll have to do this to myself:

Plip!

StevenMario (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the key factor to consider is that you need to find the source before you add the information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Bugs. I'll keep that in mind. StevenMario (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to put it is, if you don't have a source, what's your basis for entering it? That you remember it from somewhere? That's not sufficient. Worse, it can be incorrect, because it's possible to remember things incorrectly, no matter how photographic one's memory is. And then countless wikipedia mirror sites will replicate that possible misinformation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. StevenMario (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I did it again to myself. StevenMario (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention something that seems to have been left out of this conversation. Above, you have tried to use your autism as a rationalization for your behavior. Autism may explain why are you are having these difficulties, but it does not excuse them. Wikipedians are actually a fairly tolerant bunch, and will help you if they can, but you have to be willing and able to abide by our core policies (including verifiability) if you want to continue editing here, regardless of any condition you may have. I see also that you are interested in the adopt-a-user program. That is a great idea and will probably help you avoid being blocked in the future. Good Luck! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on List of video games notable for negative reception

You apparently don't like Hotel Mario, and keep trying to insert it into List of video games notable for negative reception - however, simply loading it up with questionable references (which you only quote selectively from) is not the way to go about it. You claim that 1Up called the cutscenes "outright terrifying", yet they also call the game itself "very playable and fun". The rest of your sources are questionable, at best. You're already in violation of your promise not to revert more than once a day - please stop. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of films notable for negative reception

It would probably take me all day to list the things wrong with what you just did at List of films considered the worst, so I'll try to just summarise: if you wish to move a page to a different title, click the "move" tab, don't cut and paste the contents to a new page, it screws up the history. But of course, you shouldn't just move a page without first gauging whether there is consensus for the current title, by discussing it on the talk page. You didn't do this. Please do in future. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. I didn't know what to do since the title "list of films considered the worst" wasn't so good. I'll try again in the future.

February 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page User:Dripping Dildo worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. There's no evidence to suggest the user was a sockpuppet. Don't add templates like that unless you're *sure.* GSK (talk ● evidence) 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Cat in the Hat (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Template:PD-US-no notice. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did I change on The Cat in the Hat (film) that was unconstructive? I didn't vandalize, and I made minor changes that I always make. Kidlittle (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of David Sant

A tag has been placed on David Sant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -Zeus-^u|c 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marcello Magni

A tag has been placed on Marcello Magni requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -Zeus-^u|c 23:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marcello Magni

A tag has been placed on Marcello Magni, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Seinfeld. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:StevenMario. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been warned about this many times now, based on all the messages on your talk page and you're continuing to add original research into articles. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT putting original research in CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series because it is reliably sourced. Please stop saying that it is my opinion or I'm going to be ignoring this and start adding sourced information. StevenMario (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StevenMario for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to WP:CSD

Did you really think that this edit had consensus or was at all likely to get it? Your proposed "nutshell" of "Any article, file, or other page that is poorly done, sourced, or unimportant may be deleted on sight." is, IMO, about as far from the point of WP:CSD as it is possible to be. Please don't try to change policy pages in radical ways without discussion. DES ^(talk) 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to The Cat in the Hat (film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above note from DESiegel about your "nutshell" for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, you have gone ahead and made a similarly inappropriate "nutshell" for Wikipedia:Banning policy. I repeat DESiegel's request: Please don't try to change policy pages in radical ways without discussion. It is probably also a good idea not to try to change policy pages until you have enough experience of how those policies work. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter page protection templates, as you did at Walt Disney. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawn

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Walt Disney article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions.

Please do not submit another article to FAC without consulting the significant contributors, and considering a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Warning

Do not impersonate or imitate an administrator by threatening to ban users for no reason. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 01:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of video games considered the greatest

I have nominated List of video games considered the greatest, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games considered the greatest. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Blueboy 96 03:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.223.54.247 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. R12056 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Daffy - The Commando 017 0001.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daffy - The Commando 017 0001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daffy Duck - To Duck or not To Duck 001 0002.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daffy Duck - To Duck or not To Duck 001 0002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. We hope (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC) We hope (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]