User talk:MSENDER007

Thank you Yamla, I'll do that.

Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope you can come back and be an editor again
While you did make some pretty big mistakes it was definitely, nice that you were very enthusiastic about franchises and worked a lot on minor ones which didn't have articles. I hope you know that there will not be any ill feelings if you come back when the six months have passed, it's better if you do that instead of making a new account that will be blocked as a sock.★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, ★Trekker and no ill feelings. MSENDER007 (talk) 25 January 2019.

Orphaned non-free image File:Timecop (tv series).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Timecop (tv series).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise


Hello, MSENDER007. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 08:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked under WP:SO
Hello, I'd like to ask a few questions to assess your readiness to return.
 * What is copyright? Under what circumstances can copyrighted material be used on Wikipedia? How is it potentially harmful to use material copyrighted elsewhere?


 * What is edit warring? What will you do instead?


 * What are reliable sources? Why are they are important? What must users do when adding content?

Thanks, -- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dloh cier ekim  Copyright is the right that the producer of a work has been granted to prevent others from copying it without permission. Copyrighted material should only be used in article if the material is cited and linked to copyrighted material. The use of materials that infringe the copyrights others could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, “edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute.” Furthermore, the site states a person should instead “seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues.” (redacted) Reliable sources are important because Wikipedia articles need to be "based on reliable, published, sources." According to the site, “if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.” Content protocols states “[w]hen adding content and creating new articles, an encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important. Instead of essay-like, argumentative, or opinionated writing, Wikipedia articles should have a straightforward, just-the-facts style. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. […] Ideally, all information should be cited and verifiable by reliable sources.” MSENDER007 (talk) 5:36 p.m 25 January 2019
 * What is copyright?
 * Under what circumstances can copyrighted material be used on Wikipedia?
 * How is it potentially harmful to use material copyrighted elsewhere?
 * What is edit warring? What will you do instead?
 * What are reliable sources?
 * Why are they are important?
 * What must users do when adding content?
 * OK, two issues here:
 * This editor can only be unblocked by a checkuser, and the current unblock request completely ignores the extensive socking.
 * "A reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence such as scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books; trade or professional articles or books; magazine articles, books and newspaper articles from well-established newspapers." is copy-pasted from this site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Responding to NinjaRobotPirate) Given the copyright violation and plagiarism during the attempt to unblock, I very strongly suggest we decline this unblock request. That's even without taking into account the previous extensive sockpuppetry. I'm deeply, deeply disappointed here. Committing a copyright violation while attempting to have a block for copyright violations (and other issues)? Hard to see a path forward from this. --Yamla (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've restored the blanked coversation here as they have come into -unblock requesting an unblock, and this should take place on-wiki. Pinging as the blocking admin so she is aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

To reviewing admin
To the reviewing administrator, please note that MSENDER007 committed a copyright violation earlier today. You can see the discussion at this version of this talk page. MSENDER007, please do not blank this message. It forms an important part of your unblock request. Your recent copyright violations, given that you've been blocked for copyright violations and for sockpuppetry, is relevant here. --Yamla (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He can't. Looking through the talk page history, MSENDER007 has been repeatedly removing declined unblock requests and blanking any message that comments on the unblock process.  I've revoked his talk page access – for now, at least.  At a minimum, we need a few hours to discuss this without having the discussion repeatedly blanked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * added the copyright violation, and it was copy-pasted from this site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.