User talk:MasterEditorDXK

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- JLaTondre 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Other People's Comments[edit]

Please don't edit other people's comments as you did here. It is fine to copyedit article pages and other content, but not users' comments. There is only a small set of reasons why someone's comments should be edited. You may wish to read this Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However, I looked at your contributions and I don't see any other edits to comments after my note. You edited a policy page (Wikipedia:Protection policy), but those weren't comments so that fine. What page were you referring to? -- JLaTondre 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

I'm intrigued. Why are you going through articles (and, in some cases, talk pages) changing British/Canadian/Australian/Commonwealth English to American English? We have policies regarding national variations of English, here being one example, and in many cases, you are blatantly violating that guideline. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Firefox, right? Mine does the same thing. The problem is, the Firefox spellchecker isn't that great, and it "corrects" lots of things that are acceptable in Wikipedia settings, too. Such as this edit, where it replaced "noncompliant" (which is a real word, see [1] [2] e.t.c.), and changed wiki to "Wiki", whereas the lowercase version is correct. It is quite difficult to know what to change and what not to change with the Firefox spellchecker. Still, thanks for the explanation. Just try to be careful. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to George W. Bush has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Bassbonerocks (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Atlantic Records. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Horselover Frost (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 40 days. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. Infrogmation (talk) 02:00, 9 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Punishment too harsh

Decline reason:

Those edits were not "unconstructive," they were blatant vandalism and not to be tolerated. This block could be reduced, seeing as you are new, but not if you don't convince us this kind of thing won't continue. A little bit of this plus some good contributions is not an acceptable balance. Mango juice^talk 18:15, 25 October 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.

The majority of the edits that I've made on Wikipedia have been constructive and just because I made 2 minor nonconstructive edits does not warrant a 2 month block in my opinion.

This does seema little harsh for a first offense. I will contact the blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a long absence, this editor began editing again, and all of the 2008 edits are disruptive in some way. Maybe this is a case of a compromised password, or maybe a formerly useful editor decided that vandalism was more fun, but something's really wrong here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:19, 25 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Ok I understand my edits were vandalism, this is NOT an ordeal of compromised password as another administrator suggested. I am completely admitting it but I've been blocked since October 9th and have been making good edits without an account since then, I'm pretty sure I can handle having my account back. Thanks.

Decline reason:

So you admit evading the block by using anonymous accounts? Sounds like a violation of WP:SOCK to me. Unblock declined. — Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 25 October 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.