User talk:MountCan

What do you need help with? I can speak to you in French or in English, whatever you like. MTLskyline (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In short you need your account to be autoconfirmed (to get autoconfirmed, your wikipedia account must be at least 4 days old and you must have made at least 10 edits with that account)

Source: Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users

MTLskyline (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may copy the layout of my Sandbox if you say that I was the original creator. Also, you cannot use my article on HSM 4. This is kept for interest and may not be published anywhere else. --

I understand. You may use the references, but not the exact text. You could paraphrase it, though. --

T - C - S - E) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not officially, at least according to NHC. I haven't seen a TWD or an advisory that confirms a downgrade. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is no evidence that it has been downgraded, shouldn't it be kept as a Cat. 2? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see the update. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no 3PM update here yet, so it hasn't been released to the public.
  cool stuff) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Can I see the link?

  cool stuff) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't even know what you tried to say by that, but all of our information has to come from

  cool stuff) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The 4PM update is out, so there was no need to remove that. I've reverted.
  cool stuff) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No problem. There's about a dozen editors watching the article and the news feeds, so these things get fixed fast. Since the article is really visible right now (linked from the

  cool stuff) 20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

In this edit, you claimed to have reverted an edit of mine, and told me to stop "edit warring" or else I will be blocked.

First of all, I have not edited that since 2 hours ago. Secondly, I have never made such a large edit like that. Thirdly, there is no edit warring going on on that article at all - so how could I possibly be edit warring in the first place? Please clear this up quickly, as accusing someone of edit warring is quite serious. --haha169 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Is this personal? I don't believe I have ever done anything to you, yet you keep on accusing me of stuff I have never done. I also take

WP:DTTR seriously as well. And may I remind you that I haven't edited the article in 2 hours, and haven't reverted anybody's edits on that article at all. Explain this to me personally without leaving templates. --haha169 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

MountCan, I expect a reply to my questions above. --haha169 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any diffs to prove this? I would love to find some diffs that prove this - since I haven't touched the article at all in the past two hours. --haha169 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a reply to my last question as well. --haha169 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to prove it, you'll have to find the diffs. In addition, I can safely say that the only thing that I have ever removed from the article are uncited additions. I even mention them in my edit summaries. If you disagree with my edit, you have to first address my edit summary concerns, not breaking

WP:CIVIL and leaving my first 2 vandal templates ever (I never got one before 1/2, as well as accusing me with such a high-level breakage of Wikipedia policy, as well as accusing me of vandalism and being a vandal. That is a high-level accusation, and its your job to find me diffs. --haha169 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In all honesty, I don't know what you're saying. Apparently, this is because of one sentence. You do not leave two templates and an accusation of edit warring because I removed one sentence. I also found the diff, and I also found my edit summary: "Remove unnecessary detail". Apparently, other editors think its unnecessary as well, since they are removing it too. Also, you'll need a cite for that. I'm removing your vandal templates from my talk page. They trash it up. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please write more clearly next time. I honestly cannot make heads or tails or what you're trying to say. --haha169 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert removed much recently-added content and references, so I reverted back to restore them. Please discuss such actions on the talk page before executing them. Thanks, Cliff smith (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. People can become over-protective of their additions on Wikipedia. It's natural, and happens to all humans. Just try your best not to jump to conclusions next time. --haha169 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know, i started a thread on you here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MountCan.2C_probable_sock_of_banned_User:House1090.2C_causing_trouble_again

Feel free to defend yourself if you want. Amerique^dialectics 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted. Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]