User talk:GamerMan7799

December 2012
Hello, I'm Hammersoft. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bing because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverts
Before you revert things you should look at the changes. I'm removing copyright violations and add the source of the original (if it is not already given as "source" in the article). So if you think a removal is incorrect, explain why. --92.73.28.106 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see how this can go both ways. When I was reviewing your edits, I chose to revert because it seemed like you were blanking valid sections without adequate reason. I do not know enough about the topic to argue against their deletion upon closer review, so if you delete them again, I won't revert it. However, you should make clear the reason why you are deleting something in your summary. GamerMan7799 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I had made it clear. Problem being that there are so many copyvios of this user that it takes some time to remove them. --92.73.28.106 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - I would recommend using the Template:Copyvio in the future as it is a little more clear on its deletion and doesn't look like a blanking upon a quick review, like I though it was. GamerMan7799 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm not a frequent editor and wasn't aware of this. But I wrote a note to the user, hoping that he will stop it. --92.73.28.106 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He deleted my note on his talk page and reverts my removals of the copyvios. I first thought he just wouldn't know that he is doing something wrong, but I was probably wrong. --92.73.28.106 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Im not deleted your note. Please do not insult Irbox (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * & There seems to be a dispute as to the nature of these edits. As I am not a Admin and do not know all of the rules, I would ask that you both review WP:DR and move discussion to a more relevant talk page. Going to the WP:DRN can be a great way to resolve this, if you think it needs to be handled that way. GamerMan7799 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Key Safety Systems
I reverted your redirect on the above. The article you created at the new name is a copyright violation as it contains a substatisub amount of the content of the article named in the section header here without the attribution provided by the article history.

What you need to do is immediately blank the new article and request speedy deletion on it, then move the original article to the new name. If you need help, enquire at WP:RM. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for the feedback, I apologize for not handling this through the proper methods, I had not done something like this before. I have blanked the page for Joyson Safety Sytems, and do not intend to contest the speedy deletion. I have also added a request for the technical move. Is there anything else I should do, to do this process correctly? GamerMan7799 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Fixing bad ping. GamerMan7799 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now. If you run into technical issues you haven't encountered before, feel free to drop me a note and I'll try to either help you or direct you to help. Take care. John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit Coat of Arms 2017.png
Thank you for uploading File:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit Coat of Arms 2017.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)