User talk:MC32

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nancy ^talk 21:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

If you

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article

]

Jenna Mourey

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

]

Jenna Mourey

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

]

Jenna Mourey

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove

I would also ask you to read the existing cited sources for statements made in an article before amending anything "connected" to those sources. You are on pretty thin ice here because repeated violations of our policies relating to biographies of living people can result in you being blocked from editing. We can take no chances when it comes to issues that may involve libel. Be careful. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article

Insert that rubbish again and I will issue a final warning for vandalism. Read the cite sources and do your maths relating to 72 days if you must. Sitush (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the warning - all my fault, per message in section below. - Sitush (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting you on Kim Kardashian. I have checked the source and see that you were correct. Mea culpa. LadyofShalott 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. I have also apologised to LadyofShalott, since this is all my doing. My brain is hurting. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of my error, I have asked someone to review my reverts of your edits at Tara Reid and Katie Price. If I have got those wrong also then I really am in trouble! - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Titanic (1997 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Nicola McLean, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good work on the Cheryl Cole article. I like the Filmography section now. A couple of minor things to mention though. I think we do need some mention of the 2003 nightclub incident, though it probably needs rewording to sound less like sensationalism. I'll add it to the talk page and perhaps work on it when I have a chance. The other thing concerns the TBA, which is probably best left out per

Re-added and slightly altered the paragraph. The fact that this incident occurred is on record so I see no problem with including it. But I don't think we need to speculate about the alleged details, and as Cole was cleared of the race allegations we shouldn't castigate her here.

talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at MS Queen Elizabeth, you may be blocked from editing. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

MC32, I'm not certain whether your edits over the last few days have actually been vandalism or just carelessness - no edit summaries, ignoring editing suggestions in the wiki markup, deleting text, not using the talk pages.... If you'd be willing to appeal the block via the instructions above, or just post here, and agree to be a bit more careful I'll lift the block. Any other admin who sees this first is welcome to do the same. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can I ask why you made this edit to EastEnders? You haven't included an edit summary so I'm completely confused as to why you removed some of the caption and a reference. Can you please explain the edit, thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Simon Cowell does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! 5 albert square (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again MC32, it is with regret that I find myself having to talk to you about your edits.

Could you please explain your recent edits to the encyclopedia? As a result of your edit to the

I actually watch and edit The X Factor UK pages and I can tell you right now that the reason they don't have a "past judges" section in the infobox is because right next to the judges names it displays the years that they have been judges on the show (with the exception of Louis Walsh as he is an original judge, the consensus is he will get that displayed once he's left). For example "Simon Cowell (2004-10)" tells me that he was a judge on the show, his first appearance in 2004 and he appeared every year up to and including 2010, he did not appear in 2011. "Brian Friedman (2007)" tells me that he only appeared in 2007 as a judge, possibly only even for a few weeks (as was the case).

Can I also ask why you removed the image from the Simon Cowell page? You haven't left an edit summary explaining anything and when I look at the image I can find nothing wrong with it's licensing and there's no reason why it can't be on the page. Why did you remove it?

I can see that others (including myself!) have previously attempted to discuss our concerns with you on your talk page and I cannot see a response to any of the concerns yet. Like Kim above, I'm not sure if your edits are vandalism or carelessness but due to the amount of warnings you've had, please count this as a final warning. If your editing continues in the format it's in, then you may find yourself blocked without further warning, you may even find that the

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If you have a good reason for removing the image from the Katie Price article, give it. Otherwise, stop removing that image. Dismas|^(talk) 00:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, MC32, with regret I find myself having to talk to you about your edits again. I did warn you about your editing after you removed the image from Simon Cowell's article and I'm sorry to notice that you have been doing the same thing to Katie Price. You have also taken to blanking articles again I see.

Because of the way you've been editing and the fact that you have yet to enter into dialogue with any editors expressing concern over the way you've been editing you have now been blocked for one week. The only reason it's not an indefinite block for vandalism is because I can see from posts from other editors above that some of your edits have been misunderstood and thought they were vandalism when they weren't. This is why edit summaries are so important to Wikipedia.

You have been blocked for a period of one week by myself, if you carry on vandalising when you return then you may find that the next block is longer and maybe even indefinite. I suggest that you use this enforced time out to read

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Cher Lloyd, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

Chris Crocker. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GB fan 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

November 2012

Hello, I'm

edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Do not just remove the hidden comment. As far as we're aware Sean and Roxy have never divorced. If you have any issues with this bring it up on the characters talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Favonian (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]