User talk:SNAAAAKE!!
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Just wanted to let you know I've promoted XCOM: Enemy Unknown to Good Article status. Thanks for your work--keep it up, Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I have started the GA review of Ada Wong at Talk:Ada Wong/GA1; further work is required before this article can be considered for Good article status; I have left a number of comment which I hope you will find constructive at the review page, which I have added to my watchlist. Harrias talk 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"controversy" / links to search results / WP:BURDEN
a link in an edit summary to a search result is not supplying an actual inline citation in the article with a source appropriate source that shows such a description is actually a valid an appropriate description for this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- You knew it was controversial (practically everyone with the Internet knows it), you were presented the evidence (that you didn't need, as it was of the "Earth is not flat" obvious variety and was ridicalously easy to find, but anyway), now you can use it or any number of other references (from the pool of hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources) you want if you feel this is needed. --Niemti (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do not tell me what i "know to be controversial". The interwebs are full of people calling EVERYTHING "controversial". The content was specifically removed and challenged and it is YOUR SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY to provide an appropriate inline citation to support your claim that such a descriptor is in fact appropriate for the film in the context of this article. WP:BURDEN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is also "YOUR SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY" to source something if you think it should be sourced (and you know it's true, which you do, and even if you didn't knew back then you know now after you were shown). No, I didn't even add it (I think). --Niemti (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not my specific responsibility to add sources for content that other people want in the encyclopedia. Particularly content that shouldn't be in encyclopedic articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is also "YOUR SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY" to source something if you think it should be sourced (and you know it's true, which you do, and even if you didn't knew back then you know now after you were shown). No, I didn't even add it (I think). --Niemti (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do not tell me what i "know to be controversial". The interwebs are full of people calling EVERYTHING "controversial". The content was specifically removed and challenged and it is YOUR SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY to provide an appropriate inline citation to support your claim that such a descriptor is in fact appropriate for the film in the context of this article. WP:BURDEN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacob's Ladder (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boot camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Mai-mi2.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Mai-mi2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Niemti,
when you make splits or copy content then you must attribute the copy correctly. Now can you please review Template:Copied and add the templates to this article and the article you have created as appropriate. Op47 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| Thanks for your work over on Queen Grimhilde Tiggerjay (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC) |
Tira
Thank you for providing a screencap of the email. That would indeed be a valid source. However, the reason I doubted you was because you claimed she had confirmed it in an email and did not provide any proof. I claimed there was no source because you only provided that proof after I made that edit. Just saying. --Shadoman (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 05:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban enacted
Per the consensus at ANI (link) ou are now topic-banned from all edits to articles or discussions relating to Anita Sarkeesian, broadly construed. You may appeal against this restriction to the community at some later time, or to the Arbcom's ban appeals subcommittee. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)