User talk:StevenMario

This user is autistic.

This user comes from the U.S. state of Georgia.

The article

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

Your insistence on saying Nintendo has released only 3 Wii games in the US this year is annoying because it is false. Nintendo has released the following Wii games in the US so far this year: New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis, New Play Control! Pikmin, New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Punch-Out!!, Wii Sports Resort, Metroid Prime: Trilogy, Wii Fit Plus, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Excitebots: Trick Racing. That's 9 games. TJ Spyke 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Power Play Controls do not count. If they did, they would have a reception, but they didn't. They're just remakes. StevenMario (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They DO count. Also, STOP adding a Decline section. You are the ONLY one who thinks it needs to exist, the consensus from everyone else is that it doesn't need its own section. Keep doing it and you will get warnings and maybe a block. TJ Spyke 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're as valid as any Nintendo-published game. Not all games get their own articles, but that doesn't make them any less of a game. Reach Out to the Truth 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes don't really count actually. It's just the same game only with different controls. In order to "un-confuse" that, I put "excluding the New Play Control! remakes" on there, just in case. Also, a decline section must be needed because people need to know where the information is, if you know what I mean. StevenMario (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what you mean. What's it supposed to mean? Any information in the article should already be available. Any claim, especially one so bold as that, needs be backed up by reliable sources. Do any sources claim that these declines in sales are in any way significant or a problem, or is this just a

WP:SYNTHESIS? The claim that ports don't count is certainly original research, and the rest doesn't sit well with me either. Reach Out to the Truth 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If it's about the citation needed reason, that is a must. It really helps out when a source, not a blog or somebody's word-of-mouth, but something that is proven like three times over, is used, that way debate is quelled and the article can progress.

Coffee5binky (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't add comments to articles threatening users with being blocked. If a user is vandalizing the article, a better course of action is to place warnings of increasing severity on the user's talk page. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it was an I.P. user StevenMario (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-IP editors receive warning messages just like logged-in users, and the IP can be blocked if the user doesn't comply. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two people keep reverting edits, claiming that they are specific, which they aren't. Please stop and do not command me to stop, or you two will be reported StevenMario (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were nothing more than over-elaboration, and it is not allowed.

Ballot Box Bunny#Censorship
Rabbit Fire#Censorship
Bushy Hare#Censorship
Big House Bunny#Censorship
Bugs' Bonnets#Censorship

Also, you are the one that is edit warring, so stop, and it is NOT over-elaboration. IT IS SPECIFIC. StevenMario (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people names and telling lies is only going to get you banned, so do not do it. You're behaving very immaturely. CBFan (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SHUT UP CBFAN! YOU ARE NOT IN THIS CONVERSATION! StevenMario (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBFan knows what he's doing!

talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have asked you nicely not to behave like that. What part of "Please do not behave this way" are you incapable of understanding? CBFan (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the other way around.

I DO have sources! StevenMario (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are not always reliable.

They're not fan sites. The Looney Tunes cartoons that have censorship sections have sources like I used on the Tom and Jerry cartoons. Here's one example. StevenMario (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age Cartoons is most definitely a fan site. It specifically states "This is an unofficial site" on this page. And the pages you're linking to by way of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine don't even appear on the current site.

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Allthough you both maybe right, some of those people on that site might have been experts on censored cartoons. StevenMario (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As true as that may be, there is no proof that any of the people on that site are experts. And no matter whether they are experts or not, it is still a fan site.

talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Broadcast syndication refers to a program offered to a various channel or station, allthough it could also be offered to networks. StevenMario (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

It's Christmas Eve tomorrow, and I'm taking a break! MERRY CHRISTMAS! StevenMario (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need assistance on this page! Anyone is gullible to help please help! StevenMario (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StevenMario_and_ownership_issues. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge you to remove the "enemy-list" from your userpage. This is not contributing to a constructive editing environment here. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add, if you refuse to remove it, your page is liable to be

nominated for deletion. Thanks in advance for your co-operation. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

At

WP:ANI, I've removed it for him. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec) Secondly, hardly anyone is giving you "commands" around here as you assert on the top of this page. As far as I can tell, you are merely being made aware of wikipedia's policies; ignoring them could very well get you blocked, eventually. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far I only know one MGM vault fire, which was back in 1965. Millions of silent films were lost. Were there any other vault fires? We should make a page about those fires. StevenMario (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly encourage you to create a page on this as this is something of value.

talk) 01:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sockpuppetry

case

You have been accused of

I forget to log on when I edit, so it is hard to explain that. StevenMario (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can comment on the investigation page. It is hard to explain that, but I can understand where you are coming from. A clerk there only said that the only linking is behavioral evidence, but feel free to tell him that.

talk) 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please be sure to read this version of the SPI case, especially J.delanoy's comment. Best regards, NW (Talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the songs in the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, a "cover version" of popular songs has not be used in any of the DVD releases of THIS particular Mario cartoon series. The series in question is The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 that was packaged with the Captain N releases. Just letting you know so you stop editing with the improper and incorrect information. I also have MANY VHS and Betamax tapes with the original broadcast airings of Super Mario Bros. Super Show from 1989 to 1991 and the Shout! Factory DVDs, so trust me, I know first-hand. Coffee5binky (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to What Price Porky. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you from editing for one day. Please when this expires present reliable sources at Talk:What Price Porky in support of your points. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not vandalizing pages nor am I edit-warring or assuming ownership. I am 14 years old and I am autistic, and I am NOT

TheRealFennShysa has removed all the sections from The Little Orphan

, and that is vandalism. I'm planning to undo that revision because the source is the cartoon itself.

Decline reason:

You seem quite confused; you indeed immediately returned to edit warring after the release of a block for the same. You also seem to be declaring that you will continue this behavior on another article if unblocked. I would strongly encourage you to read our policy on this at

WP:EDITWAR during your time out; should you actually continue this when your block expires, the next one will be for a much longer period. Kuru ^talk 00:19, 1 January 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not edit-warring. We need to delete ALL cartoon pages. If this debate will not end, end it! AND I AM NOT TAKING ORDERS FROM ANYONE! Also, you guys are all making me mad. IF YOU GUYS DO NOT STOP, I WILL GET VERY MAD! YOU GUYS NEVER ASSUME GOOD FAITH!

Decline reason:

This is not a request for unblocking. It does not acknowledge the reason for the block, nor does it indicate that you have a plan to edit differently in the future. An unblock would therefore not be useful. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 1 January 2010 (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.

Upon expiration of your previous block, you immediately returned to

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I just want to make this site more long and specific, but it is impossible to find an original source for cartoons. So I suggest we remove ALL pages related to cartoon films, if this debate will never end.

Decline reason:

You appear to be focussed on one particular path of action, which has already been pointed out to be not acceptable. I do not believe that, if unblocked, you will refrain from edit warring.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:38, 1 January 2010 (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.

This user has been causing all kinds of vandalism to the Super Mario Bros. Super Show article after I and WikiLubber put the effort to clean it up. I don't know who to contact, but I need somebody to lock that article and to block or ban this user because the information reads like a fanzine when he adds it. Also, I don't buy the "autism" claim, as the children I know with autism can't do the things he's doing. I'm not going to get into my personal beliefs, for that's neither here nor there. I don't appreciate somebody wrecking an article purposely, then go around claiming to have a disease/condition and playing victim. It's rude. Coffee5binky (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have autism, but I'M still contributing. CBFan (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to that.

talk) 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That's my point. Autism or any other ailments/illness a person suffers i there to be overcome towards success. Coffee5binky (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many autistic people can and do edit Wikipedia. As long as they are able to follow Wikipedia's rules; they're welcome here. I've welcomed people with autism who did good and useful work- and I've blocked people with autism who edited disruptively. And I appreciate when people with autism are open about it, because it's useful information if either of us becomes confused or annoyed by the other. People don't so much 'overcome' autism as just learn to work with it... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has struck again, and changed all edits that were made by me this morning that cleaned up the Super Mario Bros. Super Show article. This kid should be banned from using Wikipedia anymore, as he's not following the rules and is engaged with edit warring. Coffee5binky (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user wants to engage in edit warring, and has accused me of "owning" the Mario Show article. I don't own that article, I simply repair the damage this IMBECILIC MORON (that's StevenMario) keeps creating on the site. I seriously encourage somebody to ban him and his IPs from Wikipedia. Also, it seems he's just as destructive at other articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee5binky (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin notes: Aside from your propensity to edit war, your comments 1 2 3 on this talk page made prior to your recent disruption made it quite clear that you have no intention to comply with editing guidelines, and further enemy lists such as this demonstrate an ineptitude to work collaboratively. NJA (t/c) 09:07, 7 January 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

unknown reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  21:07, 10 January 2010 (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.

StevenMario may be trying to evade his block by editing without logging in.

Looks like there's a few others:

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You might want to take this to

WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just building up the case, Bugs...

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

StevenMario (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'retired' template is useful, for users who've decided to stop editing Wikipedia, so their fellow editors will know that they won't be logging on or responding to messages. For this account, 'indefinitely blocked' is more accurate, and in any case, since you have not yet stopped avoiding your block and editing, you haven't 'retired' in any meaningful sense of the word. The best course of action for you is to stop editing Wikipedia, stop changing templates on your userpage, stop avoiding your block, and simply find another web site on which to enjoy your internet time. Facebook is fun. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is StevenMario, and I just wanted to apologize and tell you all that I will stop vandalising. I am autistic, and I want to be respected, not disrespected. I'm trying to help out Wikipedia, but none of you won't agree. I'll stop whatever I'm doing, and I don't want to get blamed for everything. I'm trying to be nice here. StevenMario (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|1=I will stop adding original research and start helping out.}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You get this one last chance. If you are blocked again for the same behavior, it will not be lifted. Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

StevenMario (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this user couldn't even keep the "promise" in his unblock request for one day - he claims that he will stop adding original research, and yet this afternoon he violated his indef block by not logging in and editing You're a Sap, Mr. Jap from the IPs 68.218.33.70 and 68.219.240.20, adding nothing but unreferenced original research. His other edits today have also been, for the most part, unreferenced statements or changes. I seriously doubt he will change his editing patterns, so the block should not be lifted. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I AM AUTISTIC. I'm trying to find sources for the so called "original research", but you just keep removing that stuff. Just wait for crying out loud. WAIT! You don't immediately remove unreferenced things on sight. Just wait and maybe I can help, but you won't beleive me. Do you have iTunes? If you do, search in "You're a Sap Mr. Jap" and viola, the "a" in "Jap" is censored. Also, you must assume good faith when reverting unsourced changes. StevenMario (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock proposal

Steven, I'd like to give you another chance, but as noted above there are concerns about the reality of your request. You've either resumed the behaviour after a block ended, or simply used IP socks to evade blocks. Further, whilst you say you'll stop vandalising and adding original research, you also say that you'll "stop doing whatever I'm doing", which to me signals you still don't get why you're blocked. Thus, before we can consider proceeding with an unblock I need to know three things from you:

1. which articles on Wikipedia you plan to improve and how
2. exactly (step by step if possible) how you'd proceed in the future should you find yourself in a dispute with someone that seems to be progressing into an edit war
3. an agreement by you not to revert an article more than once in a 24 hour period. Any breach of that restriction would result in an immediate block (the only exemption to your 1 revert in a 24 hour period would be reverting clear vandalism, copyright violations or defamation of a living person).

We await your response to these queries, NJA (t/c) 08:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop doing this, and I'm not adding original reasearch. I'm trying to find a source for that. StevenMario (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I'll have to do this to myself:

StevenMario (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the key factor to consider is that you need to find the source before you add the information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Bugs. I'll keep that in mind. StevenMario (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to put it is, if you don't have a source, what's your basis for entering it? That you remember it from somewhere? That's not sufficient. Worse, it can be incorrect, because it's possible to remember things incorrectly, no matter how photographic one's memory is. And then countless wikipedia mirror sites will replicate that possible misinformation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. StevenMario (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I did it again to myself. StevenMario (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to mention something that seems to have been left out of this conversation. Above, you have tried to use your autism as a rationalization for your behavior. Autism may explain why are you are having these difficulties, but it does not excuse them. Wikipedians are actually a fairly tolerant bunch, and will help you if they can, but you have to be willing and able to abide by our
  talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You apparently don't like Hotel Mario, and keep trying to insert it into List of video games notable for negative reception - however, simply loading it up with questionable references (which you only quote selectively from) is not the way to go about it. You claim that 1Up called the cutscenes "outright terrifying", yet they also call the game itself "very playable and fun". The rest of your sources are questionable, at best. You're already in violation of your promise not to revert more than once a day - please stop. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably take me all day to list the things wrong with what you just did at List of films considered the worst, so I'll try to just summarise: if you wish to move a page to a different title, click the "move" tab, don't cut and paste the contents to a new page, it screws up the history. But of course, you shouldn't just move a page without first gauging whether there is consensus for the current title, by discussing it on the talk page. You didn't do this. Please do in future. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. I didn't know what to do since the title "list of films considered the worst" wasn't so good. I'll try again in the future.

What did I change on The Cat in the Hat (film) that was unconstructive? I didn't vandalize, and I made minor changes that I always make. Kidlittle (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wizard

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

u|c 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marcello Magni

Article Wizard

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

u|c 23:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marcello Magni

deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion

. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:StevenMario. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

talk 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am NOT putting

CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series because it is reliably sourced. Please stop saying that it is my opinion or I'm going to be ignoring this and start adding sourced information. StevenMario (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sockpuppetry

case

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a

sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StevenMario for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent edit to

WP:CSD

Did you really think that this edit had consensus or was at all likely to get it? Your proposed "nutshell" of "Any article, file, or other page that is poorly done, sourced, or unimportant may be deleted on sight." is, IMO, about as far from the point of

WP:CSD as it is possible to be. Please don't try to change policy pages in radical ways without discussion. DES ^(talk) 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2010

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 21:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

FAC withdrawn

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Walt Disney article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions.

Please do not submit another article to FAC without consulting the significant contributors, and considering a

peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ban Warning

Do not impersonate or imitate an administrator by threatening to ban users for no reason. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 01:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games considered the greatest

List of video games considered the greatest, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games considered the greatest. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

96 03:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sockpuppetry

case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.223.54.247 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. R12056 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Daffy - The Commando 017 0001.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daffy Duck - To Duck or not To Duck 001 0002.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. We hope (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC) We hope (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StevenMario&oldid=1150994301"