User talk:SlickVicar

Welcome!

Hello, SlickVicar, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Article[edit]

Hi Slick and welcome to Wikipedia! I notice that you deleted some ^{[citation needed]} tags from the Prince article because they cluttered the section. There is a lot of text in the Prince article that is unsourced and by Wiki guideline it can be challenged and removed. This is especially true of text on articles that are biographies of living persons. So any editor could and in many cases should remove all unsourced text from an article like Prince. But I know many editors have worked hard to create that text. So my first step was to put those annoying notices that clutter up the article. That does two things: one it lets the reader know they are reading information that has not been confirmed by a reliable source and two it lets the editors know that those sentences need references and then it gets done. So I am going to put those tags back, but it is nothing personal to you. I'm just trying to get the article up to the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you. Please click these links for more info WP:RS WP:BLP -- — Kbob • Talk • 02:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Keep it Civil[edit]

Hey Slick, thanks for your comments. Wiki is a community. We all have different ways of doing things and communication is always good. I appreciated your comment to me on my User Page and you can go there and read my response about the points for the Prince article. The one point I wanted to make here is that communication on Wiki is always more useful when its polite and civil. This comment below, which you left on my user page, might be better left out in the future. Thanks. All the best.

"it was like putting "dick quotes" around words. You know dick quotes? Like, if i say Keithbob is a "good" Wikipedia contributor? That he is very "helpful"?

-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:GoatOnAPole.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:GoatOnAPole.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Aptronym. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aptronym. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You're pushing it. One more outburst like you've been making at Talk:Aptronym would solidify a claim that you are only here to fight and have no interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Editors are banned for less. JesseRafe (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aptronym. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Aptronym page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijargon[edit]

For what it's worth, if you find yourself facing potential conflict because of a misunderstanding of wikijargon (which is ubiquitous on talk pages), my advice would be to take a sec and ask for clarification at one of the venues that exist for that sort of thing (like the Teahouse, or even on my talk page -- happy to help when I can, though I can't guarantee I'll be active at the time). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, SlickVicar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, SlickVicar. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]