User talk:Ccacsmss

Welcome!

Hello, Ccacsmss, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Sorry it's a bit late! Deb (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not fix links to redirects that are not broken

You might want to read WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 09:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Many of your changes introduce improper capitalization. Redirects are there so similar terms will get you to the same place. If it isn't broke, don't change it (especially when your change introduces grammatical errors). Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still doing this. The capitalisation of the first letter of a link makes no difference to whether it works. Therefore there is no point in doing this, and the time it wastes for other editors to find what has changed and th weird way it looks in the edit page are reasons enough to not do it. Please stop, it does not help anyone.Yob Mod 14:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted kings.

Hi; i have undone your edits to Richard, Henry, and John of England, as the nicknames you remeoved are useful indicators to their respective holders. Many people may not know which Richard was Richard Lionheart (i.e. Richard or Richard or Richard), so the nickname identifies. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Carol Cleveland.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Carol Cleveland.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. [midnight comet] [talk] 13:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Template:Computer-mediated communication. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Marriage. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Double jeopardy. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Sexual attraction. Thank you. Please observe this, as others have also asked you to. Law Lord (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. I don't know why you are removing pipe links and valid wikilinks, but you have been warned enough. This is a final warning template, your edits are unhelpful. Please stop. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you unexplainedly remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, you will be blocked from editing. Nsaum75 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to St. Joseph's Hospital. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 3 days from editing for persistent vandalism. 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. Enigma^msg 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Seven Laws of Noah. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shlomke (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Ten Commandments, you will be blocked from editing. Shlomke (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Britney Spears singles, 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. ---Shadow (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please provide edit summaries with your edits. Without them, other editors have difficulty distinguishing between legitimate edits and vandalism, which is a big problem at Wikipedia. Edits that have edit summaries are much less likely to be reverted. Thanks. CliffC (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally linking to a disambiguation page

Regarding your recent edit to Baby (disambiguation) (diff), and a similar edit a few days before: Per WP:INTDABLINK, when linking intentionally to a plain-title disambiguation page, the linking should be done through the redirect that uses the (disambiguation) clarifier. This indicates to editors who disambiguate incoming links to dab pages that the link is intentional and does not need to be fixed. Also, as a general principle--and as other editors have already mentioned to you--there is no reason to change a link just to avoid a redirect.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your edits to Template:Defence mechanisms

i thought they were strange but now i see you have done this plenty of times before.--Penbat (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple

I reverted these edits by you. One reason is because you are linking to the same exact thing with List of fictional supercouples. That list was/is specified in the way that it is within those sections so that readers are not being pointed to the same exact thing each time; instead, they are being pointed to the section specifically related to the section they are reading. The other reason I reverted you is that you are mentioning/linking full names in the image captions when they are not needed (because they are already mentioned/linked close to their images). Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking Red links

Your recent edits to Road have been reverted the do not follow the direction at WP:REDDEAL. As an example the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Timber_trackway is linked to from 5 articles and missing article list, clearly meets notability and the criteria for keeping under WP:REDDEAL. If you have any questions or if I can be of any help please leave a message on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DPL

Based on the edits you have been making you might like the project Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Seems like you want to do a lot of good work in that direction, your choice. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 21:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breed Specific Legislation

Hi! I reversed the change you made where you replaced "pit bull-type dog" with "Pit Bull" because the pit bull (in the context of the article) is a type of dog made up of several breeds, and not a breed in and of itself. Astro$01 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in dermatology?

Any interest in dermatology? If so, perhaps you would be interested in helping with the dermatology task force, particularly with the the Bolognia push? We are always looking for more help! ;) ---kilbad (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Fixing' redirects

Hello Ccacsmss. Could i point out, please, that edits such as these ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) do not help the project. The redirects already exist pointing to the place you have changed the wlink to and, as has been pointed out to you above, by OlEnglish and others, current editing guidelines ask you not to do it. Please reread NOTBROKEN to reassess how you could be more useful to the project. Thanks, and Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 11:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vampires of Venice

Hi!

Rosanna isn't human: The Doctor goes back to the school and confronts Rosanna. He identifies her as a Saturnynian, a race of aquatic beings.

I've linked "hers" to the "Saturnynian" entry in the list of Doctor Who species.

Cheers! TFOWR^propaganda 20:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and lack of reply - you need to change, now

I notice you have been warned numerous times for edits to wiki-links. It appears you have continued this habit, despite warnings and a block. You are well on your way to more blocks and a possible ban if you cannot modify your behavior. Since you seem unwilling to respond, which is important in contesting such administrator actions, the end will be likely a final indef block or ban.

Strongly suggest you change your behavior, now. Consider this a friendly warning... choose a topic you like, and see if you can improve it, and enjoy. Hoping you see the light, Jusdafax 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported for vandalism here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for two weeks

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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Your lack of communucation coupled with truly bizarre and idiosyncratic edits have led to this current block. The next block will be permanent. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

...and yet again, you appear to have resumed your unorthodox editing behavior. Why not devote the considerable time you spend on Wikipedia to constructive editing? Or at the very least, explain what you are doing? DoctorJoeE (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern of behaviour has been going on now for over a year inspite of many warnings and 2 suspensions. I think we are now getting very close to pulling the plug as per User:PMDrive1061's comment above. --Penbat (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the pattern continues. The strangest part, at least to me, is the complete lack of response - no attempt to explain, nothing. I'm not sure how much more cause you need for plug pulling. If I had the power I'd do it now. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can set up an entry at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and an administrator will review the case and take appropriate action. --Penbat (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tattling ain't my thing, but this is ridiculous. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can discuss your edits and resolve the issues brought here to your talk page, I am willing to consider unblocking (or to allow another admin to unblock). -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Courtship disorder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtship disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtship disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — James Cantor (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]