User talk:TheTruthiness

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Scott Keith

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. McPhail 15:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal encyclopedias very rarely contain commentary on the weight and physique of the article subjects. McPhail 00:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were genuinely attempting to improve the article, then I apologise. For whatever reason, that particular article is subject to a lot of puerile vandalism. McPhail 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Marie Varon's marital status

I wanted to talk about your edit about her marital status. As someone who is a big fan of her's, I've read a lot of material about her. I even looked at her member-only journal entries on her website. The only place I've ever seen her listed as married is the imdb, and I know for a fact that it's not always accurate, like here. What might contradict your claims is that this link from a well-known wrestling website says her last name was changed for "legal purposes". I'm just bringing this up because there are a lot of problem editors out there, especially when it comes to professional wrestling articles, and anyone can just come in and say they know people in the business. Believe me, just look at how many articles there are with unsourced tags.ErikNY 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, that link worked for me as in Google's cache, so if you put it through that, it should work. Next, I see what you mean about the WWE not acknowledging these women's personal lives. How devistated would people be when the find out that Candice, despite the Playboy push, is married? Or that Mickie is engaged to that Spirit Squad member getting the big push? Or Maria is dating a heavily-hyped wrestler? Finally, I remember a recent WWE.com article that Haas was expecting, but didn't mention that his wife was an ex-WWE employee that now works for the competition. All in all, I'm not going to revert Victoria's fact (even though I have in the past), but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did or asked for linked proof. ErikNY 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flores316

Looks like he stopped editing for now. Thanks for the tip though. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm editing at the time the best thing would to be to report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Blank

First of all u are not supposed to say that in her page, ok this is an encyclopedia, it does not have to get negative effects and what are u doing is WRONG!. the reason y i erase it is b/c is true but that doesn't mean u need to put that on her page as for now i will keep on removing it and put more proper things in it.

User:JustMaria

Just b/c Hitler's entry says this that doesn't mean u can do that to Barbie's profile, how about this let's just leave it like that without saying that the stip tease was received with poor criticism so let's just leave it like (like without the negative effects) and let's not mess with it anymore

User:JustMaria

Re:Vince McMahon

Thanks for the kudos. Have a good one. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

You seem to be having problems with the images you are uploading. Are you aware that each and every image needs a source identifying the original copyright holder, an accurate license, and a detailed fair-use rationale for every use of the image? I know it can be a real pain, but please don't upload any more pictures without this information. Copyright violations put Wikipedia directly at risk. Thanks. --Yamla 05:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kristen Bell.jpg cannot be used in the way you were using it. Please see my comments there. --Yamla 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

You are doing a great job and I really appreciate the effort you are now making in identifying the copyright holder, providing accurate licenses, and providing detailed fair-use rationales. Thank you. --Yamla 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Goof Troop

I didn't see the other statement. I saw yours. In addition, your speculation on a connection between Goof Troop and F Troop is much more dubious than that of a connection between the 50's Goofy-and-son shorts and Goof Troop. Regardless of that, though, you're right; the latter should be described by saying that Goof Troop bears some similarities to the shorts from the 50's, rather than speculating on a direct connection. Powers 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actor infobox

Hey, TheTruthiness. I hope you don't mind if I converse with you here rather than at that talk page. It's easier. For which page does it not work? -- Ladida 01:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Hunt, the image isn't showing. --TheTruthiness 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should work now. The syntax was wrong. -- Ladida 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get it. You're not supposed to have to use the [[Image:Example.jpg]] tags in an infobox. Every other infobox you just put "Example.jpg" and it automatically resizes it. I requested admins to fix it and use a bot to remove the image tags in existing boxes once it's fixed, so hopefully they'll do it sometime. --TheTruthiness 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Isn't it easier just to use the [[Image:Example.jpg]] tags? Not every infobox does it without the tags. Many of them leave the image attribute to the editors so that they can choose the size since smaller images may be automatically resized to a bigger size that decreases the resolution.

Every one I've ever used has automatically done it, resizing to 200px it seems. I know what you're saying, but from what I'm aware the auto-formatting is the norm. --TheTruthiness 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. OK then. If you want check out the geographical infoboxes or some of the other biographical infoboxes, auto-formatting isn't used all the time. Thus far, I've only come across it twice. Thanks for your replies. -- Ladida 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

411mania

Hi, I see you re-added the tags I removed from the article. In my view, the importance-tag is sort of useless since it says "The site's reach makes it one of the larger independently owned media websites currently on the internet." on the opening paragraph. The notability-tag wouldn't be very relevant since the article already survived an afd, which would indicate people believe in its notability. The content-tag can't be addressed without specifically pointing out what information doesn't belong in the article. And the advert-tag seems misplaced since to my knowledge, they're not selling anything. In my opinion, simply putting in a ton of tags without explaining what they're for isn't productive, so if you can post your specific concerns on the talk page, it would be helpful. Thanks. - Bobet 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I just deleted the picture you uploaded of Maddox. I don't know what was up with the sign that he was holding, and his gesture, but even if it was harmless fun, it makes the picture inappropriate. Also, please avoid self-references as much as possible. Thanks! --Joanne B 09:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, I offered to restore the image and go through IfD. However, to me it looked like an attack (and I was definitely not the only one, it was someone else who drew my attention to the picture and I discussed the issue with some other admins on IRC before deleting). Therefore, I did (in my opinion) not violate any deletion policy, as attack images are speediable according to the speedy deletion criteria. I considered asking you about the intentions of the image before I deleted it, but even if you had said, as you do now, that it had nothing to do with a specific Wikipedia admin, other Wikipedia editors or readers might still see it that way and wonder, as many people were doing already, which admin this was about. Paranoid? Perhaps, but sadly, stuff like this has happened in the past. I now know you meant well, but so did I. Kind regards, --Joanne B 08:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actor infobox

Thanks for informing me that I editing the actor infobox incorrectly, but wouldn't it have been easier to just fix my mistake rather than delete it and point out how wrong I was? --61.41.231.149 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks....

thanks for the subtle edit on Ralph Kleins wiki site. I gotta confess I'm a tad new on this.

Eric in Calgary

Unfair Editing of 411mania

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it untrue. There are many things related to WWE that aren't verifiable. If you know anything about how WWE does business, they have bought out dozens and dozens of promotions and historical footage and now present history how they see it, not how it happened. WWE ignores anything that doesn't fit in with their corporate policy. Matt Hardy works with WWE now so any connection of him to 411 is off the net. Any past mention of 411 that any wrestler now working with WWE ever made is off the net because he/she only made them at times when they were either not working for WWE or were on hiatus/bad terms with them. The fact that you put citation needed after things like "411mania survives almost exclusively off of ad sales" is a joke and shows how much of a vendetta you have against the site. Email the owner and ask him what the site survives off of. Or do you need WWE to somehow confirm that to you? "Site traffic is claimed to have reached record levels in April 2006" - ask the owner. "Traffic in general is extremely cyclical, usually peaking during March and April of each year, corresponding with the interest in the WWE WrestleMania event that take place around that time" - ask the owner. Do you expect CNN or other sites to have articles on this that can be linked as a citation? What do you expect? The owner's email is Stone9cold@aol.com, ask him to verify because he will verify all of this. "The site grew to become one of the larger pro-wrestling websites on the internet during the dotcom boom of the late 1990s, competing mainly with SCOOPS Wrestling." - where do you expect this to be verified? Is there a trade magazine that covers websites like this? And if you are so worried about advertising, why do you keep letting the cheap plugs of InsidePulse.com and 911mania.com to appear on the write up? Those are two tiny sites that have no significance and no reason to be mentioned. Basically what you are saying is any business or genre that isn't covered by major trade papers or other media like that should not be on wikipedia. That eliminates thousands of things that should be on. Go to IGN.com's wikipedia page. Why is "As of June 2005, IGN claimed 23 million unique visitors a month, with 5 million registered users through all departments of the site" allowed without a citation? Why is "IGN relies mostly on advertising to generate income" allowed without a citation? Your edits are a total joke and make it obvious what your intentions are because tons of other wikipedia pages have similar content with no citations and no ability to verify. Please be fair and professional instead of carrying your personal vendettas to this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.217.146 (talk • contribs) .

You rule

Dude! You've met Maddox! In person!!!!! You are my idol. Way to go, my friend.

NIRVANA2764 23:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

sorry, accidental deletion. ReverendG 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hope this finds you well! Might help if you put edit summaries in your edits, rather than labelling things "minor" - such as moving pictures around on Rachel Hunter. At least then we'd know what you were doing/how you felt/why you did something, rather than having to guess! Also, grouchie summaries don't help - at least try and be happy/respectful. Rgds, - Trident13 01:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One, I didn't put it as "minor", look again. Plus, you putting "don't be a grouch!" on your edit summary of my talk page isn't happy/respectful. And you don't have to guess, you can easily show changes between the previous version and my edits. Maybe you should get the facts straight and practise what you preach? --Kindest regards, TheTruthiness 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - don't get so grouchie! Sure I can check, but it is a rule here - no edit summaries = can be seen as vandalism, and reverted. Rgds, - Trident13 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually there is no rule about that champ. But since we're making up rules here, there's a new one that users named "Trident13" have to prove the existence of God before making edits. So once you're on the cover of TIME magazine with the heading "God exists!" you can resume editing. Until then you might want to read the actual rules of the site, and learn what vandalism actually is. HINT: It's not you being too lazy to actually read. --Thinking of sunflowers and kittens, TheTruthiness 20:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ES. From that: "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline." Also, we really are just trying to make everything run smoother - please don't take offense at our humble suggestions. Thanks! Erich Blume 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for opening a sore wound. I included the second part of the quote, "This is considered an important guideline," so as to point out that it was not a rule. I merely meant to point out that it is an important guideline. I should also mention that I meant to include that I had recently found an unsigned comment left by you, and wanted to leave a suggestion that you avoid that. Noticing that you were clearly an advanced user, I instead decided it must have been a mistake (one that I make far too often) and read your talk page. I saw this thread, and thought I might be able to help out. Clearly I did nothing but provoke you. I didn't mean to do that. Cheers! Erich Blume 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits To The Get a Mac Ads

I suggest you to watch the ad in question before branding my edits vandalism. If adding facts is vandalism, this entire encyclopedia is a vandalism circus. Arbiteroftruth 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I won't revert back to the original versions then. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth 13:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samraimi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Samraimi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reasoning behind replaceable fair use. That image is clearly FU counterexample number 8 - An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like. In such a case no image is preferred to an invalid fair use one (that encourages a free image).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rachelraycookbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rachelraycookbook.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goldylocks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Goldylocks.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christinelakin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Christinelakin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KirstenPowers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KirstenPowers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kristincavallarivm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kristincavallarivm.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tedraimi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tedraimi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snowmyspace.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowmyspace.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WEJ.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WEJ.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kagandaryn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kagandaryn.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kristenbellfame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kristenbellfame.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Duggancanada.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Duggancanada.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Tiny lister next friday 001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tiny lister next friday 001.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ksw041.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ksw041.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Briefhistoryofrhyme.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Briefhistoryofrhyme.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Briefhistoryofrhyme.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Briefhistoryofrhyme.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kingbooker.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingbooker.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AmandaSeyfried.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buzzonsmark.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Buzzonsmark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buzzonsmark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Buzzonsmark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kingbooker.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingbooker.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Finger (gesture)

Hey, man I agree with your comments on the finger article. Sorry I can't support u there, if so I'll get banned (again). -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia|wanna Talk? 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedia meetup

Just a reminder that the Calgary Wikipedia meetup is this Sunday, 2pm, at Haymarket Café (1101 Macleod Trail SE). —GrantNeufeld 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Goldust.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Goldust.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tnaknockoutsdvd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tnaknockoutsdvd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedia Meetup

With the municipal election coming up, I figured it would be good to have another local meet of Wikipedia contributors in Calgary. This would be a chance to chat about Wikipedia stuff in general, but also to discuss ways to cover the election on Wikipedia. I’m suggesting next week, at a location (TBD) in the downtown area. If you’re interested in participating, please vote on when you’d like to schedule the meet. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use fair use images to illustrate living persons

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Also, do not revert other editors, and especially do not make personal attacks --lucid 08:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ellen3dvd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ellen3dvd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rock

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Chris Rock has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily write "The {{citation}} tag does not do anything, use the {{fact}} tag." That you choose to address the editor who made that mistake as a "dumbass" is not a "truth". It's merely an insult to someone who made a simple mistake. Given that everyone makes mistakes, yourself included, this has nothing to do with "truth", it is simply a sign that you have little respect for conducting yourself with Civility and Good Faith. Continue to violate those policies, and you will be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mitchhedbergbw.jpg

I have tagged Image:Mitchhedbergbw.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tanyara1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tanyara1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of BJ NOVAC

Orphaned non-free media (File:Paparazziproductionsshirt.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Paparazziproductionsshirt.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands

Hello. I noticed that you added the template: User WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands to your page. I realize that you might not know that that doesn’t necessarily make you a member automatically. If you would be willing, could you please add your name here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands#Members. Thanks a lot and have a good day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is really odd. I actually know that Ithaca is located somewhat near Rochester, New York. I tried to see the source of it, but it seems as if you might have a template on the page that you possibly borrowed from someone else who is on the project. I also have noticed at least two other people who have this. I'd advise you to delete the template and maybe replace it with something that I have. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~How many usernames are registered to you?~~ Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

userpage formatting

Hi, I'm not sure if you were aware but when you coppied the formatting code from my userpage, it coppied all of my userboxes and added you to the WikiProjects I'm a part of. Additionally, the main box still has my introductory text from my userpage. You're welcome to use and build off of my userpage formatting, and if you want, I can provide you with a clean source code to work from so it doesn't confuse you with me. 2 says you, says two 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Security reasons

Hi, you appear to have jumped up just to reinsert this content, why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not to say we have to add it, its of little encyclopedic benefit to our readers, I do find it interesting though that you have jumped up to reinsert this content, you didn't explain why that is? Off2riorob (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger woods, no comparison. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (season 6)

Hey thx for picking up my POV re Sun not being married. I've clarified it slightly by explicitly stating that she's travelling under her maiden name for non-fans and fans who are thick ;-)

It was a kick-arse opener and I can't wait for the rest of the season to unfold. 124.148.223.93 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

What point are you trying to make by repeatedly adding that ice hockey is normally referred to as hockey? Of course it's normally called hockey, but that kind of note is just unnecessary in the article. It belongs in the main ice hockey article. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But note that articles about Obama (ie. Family of Barack Obama) don't include the phrase "often referred to as simply President Obama". Also, ice hockey was once played at the Summer Olympics (and field hockey was on the program at the time). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Edit summaries are not mandatory. If you really refuse to use them, that's fine.

Edit summaries are nice to have though. It is part of the "good citizen" behavior, showing some care towards other editors who may review your edits and explaining what you are doing. All that stays in history forever after all. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Acrossthehalltitle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Acrossthehalltitle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Baldwin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Alex Baldwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Making fun of dyslexics. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFSAs

I've looked for a reference to support your claim about criticsm of TFSAs, and can't find any. If you can provide a reliable source to support this claim, please add it into the article. Otherwise, it appears like something that has just been made up. Ground Zero | t 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan initialism

Your comments are welcome at Talk:Orphan initialism#Best known as 'World Wrestling Federation'. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furies vs furries

You've been reverted by multiple people now. Would you please, please, please go to the talk page and discuss why on earth you think that people regularly mistake furies with furries that it warrants a hatnote? --Conti|✉ 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Furry fandom‎. We simply don't disambiguate for typos. Even if it's just one letter difference. --Conti|✉ 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A History Channel Thanksgiving

Hi. Please do not add unsourced original research or synthesis to articles, you did with this edit to A History Channel Thanksgiving. When it comes to things like pop culture references in works of parody or satire, we need verifiable, secondary sources for any claims that are evaluative or analytical. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania

Perfectly simple. Note 1 states that following the introduction of more than one world heavyweight title within the promotion, there have been multiple main events featured on a single event card. WrestleMania XIX sets precedent with the World Heavyweight Championship match being featured mid-late on the card while still being noted as the Raw brand's main event. WrestleMania XXVII being the most recent example with the World Heavyweight title being featured early on the card (first match no less) while still being noted as the main event from the SmackDown brand. Thus, with the ECW brand at the time of WrestleMania XXIV being an active brand and its world title, the ECW Championship, being featured on the card, the match should be listed as the main event from the ECW brand as per Note 1 as well as WP:VERIFIABILITY.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ECW title not a world title. WWE officially says it took Mark Henry 15 years and Big Show 9 yrs to win world titles, despite each having held the ECW title within that period. Chavo match was a 2 minute squash that wasn't even booked before the show, it was never described as a main event. Use some common sense. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately for your argument, verifiability is what Wikipedia takes into account and in this case the ECW title was a world title. Simply note the number of instances during the ECW title's usage in WWE where it was called a world title.

Nitro/Morrison's reign "A modified swinging hangman’s noose neckbreaker off the middle rope stunned Punk – and all of the Land of the Extreme – and Nitro had his first singles world title."

Morrison's reign continued (Fast Forward to 3:30) "These accolades are only fitting of a true champion, and I have an accolade that very few people in sports entertainment can claim. I am a World Champion. I am the new face of ECW. I am the ECW World Heavyweight Champion."

Guerrero's reign "With the victory, Cena earns a World Championship opportunity against the titleholder of his choice at WrestleMania XXIV on Sunday, March 30, in Orlando, Florida... but which champion will he choose to face? Will he go after the WWE Championship – currently held by Randy Orton – and look to regain the title he never lost in the ring from a man who never beat him for it? Or will Cena look to conquer a different mountain and challenge an old foe, World Heavyweight Champion Edge, or a new kingpin, ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero, for a title he has never worn?"

Kane's reign "Then there’s the state of the ECW Championship held by Kane, who was also drafted over to Raw on Monday. Although ECW gained the services of United States Champion Matt Hardy, the Land of the Extreme is now left with no World Champion of their own, and only a one-in-three chance to win it back at Night of Champions... On Sunday, the Big Red Machine will defend the title in a Triple Threat Match against Big Show and Mark Henry. While the World's Largest Athlete remains on SmackDown, the World's Strongest Man was pulled to ECW in Wednesday's Supplemental Draft, and is that brand's chance to bring the title back to the Land of the Extreme. But, if Triple H, Edge and Big Show have an extremely good Night of Champions, SmackDown General Manager Vickie Guerrero could conceivably find her brand the home of all three World Championships, with both Raw and ECW left out in the cold."

Henry's reign (Fast Forward to 0:25) "There is a lot of talent in the ECW locker room, but I am a twelve-year veteran. This is my first World Heavyweight Title"

Christian's reign "Christian’s first World Title comes after a journey that expands well beyond his two months in the Land of the Extreme. "

Christian's reign continued (Fast Forward to 0:55) "This is the first of three World's Championship matches here at SummerSlam as Captain Charisma electrifies the Staples Center here at SummerSlam."

Christian's reign continued (Fast Forward to 5:40) "Josh, to illustrate the global impact of this contest, if William Regal wins the ECW Championship he'll become the ninth non-US born superstar to capture a World Title in the last 15 years. The WWE has certainly gone global and who better to wear the crown than William Regal"

As such, the evidence provided clearly shows that the ECW title was indeed a world championship while in WWE. Now as far as the retconned statements regarding Mark Henry's and Big Show's world title reigns post-ECW brand, that's just what they are, retconned statements; something that violates WP:PG. As early as Survivor Series 2011 Big Show was even noted as being a 5 time world champion, counting of course his WWE ECW and WCW title reigns. Note the hypocrisy. Finally, while the ECW title match at WrestleMania XXIV was can be viewed as a squash match, it was however noted as being the main event of the ECW brand for the show. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the opening match for the ECW brand at that Wrestlemania? What was ECW's midcard bout(s)? Brands don't have "main events", SHOWS do. Why aren't you adding WM23 Originals vs New Breed to the WM main events listing, since it was the main (read:only) event for ECW? XXV featured SD/Raw world titles yet not a single ECW match at all...odd if the ECW title was a real world title that it wasn't on the line on the supershow. You'd think a world title would be on the line at Wrestlemania, right? In reality WWE could call every single match on a show as a "main event" but WWE can say Wrestlemania is the most important thing to ever happen in the universe and we wouldn't consider it true. How can you call retconning invalid but taking whatever bullshit the WWE says as gospel is encyclopedic? WP:NPOV means we can't take WWE simply at its word. FYI I had actually meant discuss on the ARTICLE'S talk page...but I am not surprised you didn't figure that out. Congrats on all the time you spent transcribing to try and prove the Chavo/Kane throwaway "match" was a main event, seems like a good use of your life. --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly what we have here is the misconception of fan perception with reality, explicitly what WP:NPOV details. In your first part of the reply you make probably one of the biggest faults in your argument, in that brands don't have main events. In the context implied by the promotion (WWE), a brand acts as a subordinate promotion that jointly promotes major event cards along with other subordinate promotions (Raw promoting along with SmackDown and ECW), hence the concept of joint-produced PPVs events. As such, these major cards feature main matches from each respective brand promoting the event. Thus, brands do promote their own main events. As for the WrestleMania 23 ECW promoted match between the New Breed and the Originals, ECW had already promoted its brand's main event as a co-production with the Raw brand in the 'battle of the billionaires' bout. Now where your argument falls flat; you ponder on the ECW title being a world title with questioning the exclusion of the title at WrestleMania XXV, when precedent shows that the WWE title itself wasn't even defended on the card at the very first WrestleMania. As far as "WWE could call every single match on a show as a "main event" but WWE can say WrestleMania is the most important thing to ever happen in the universe and we wouldn't consider it true" while WP:NPOV clearly restricts first-party self-propaganda, it also restricts personal opinion from editors when introducing, removing, or modifying content in articles and as you can see from my arguments, my personal opinions on the subject have yet to be deemed presently evident while yours clearly have. WP:V also notes that content introduced, removed, or modified can be done so if cited; something the note in question seemingly was. Finally, I advice that you refrain from using petty insults since I have conducted my end of the discussion civilly, and while you obviously meant for this discussion to take place in the article's talk page, I noticed the vast number of Bot alerts and other cruft that clutter your talk page and simply concluded that this would probably be the best way to swiftly get your attention on the matter. Finally, as for the amount of time you assume I spent with the links provided above, pshhh I've simply copied and pasted from a previous archived discussion with another similar noob. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpectedly, it seems the March 11th 2008 edition of ECW on Sci-Fi has solved our minor debate per WP:Cite Episode.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheTruthiness. You have new messages at R'n'B's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where 'Oscars' points to

This is a big-time cultural event, and I sincerely doubt that the typical person who types in 'Oscars' wants to know about the literal statues. Your rebuttal? Vranak (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A smile for you

You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.230 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1D US BAND

I think it's best to wait until the deletion discussion is over the article is a laughable so far so lets not promote it yet AdabowtheSecond (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, article exists- valid redirect for as long as that statement's true. --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osho

Hello, TheTruthiness. You have new messages at Talk:Osho.
Message added 14:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Association football

What is incredibly inaccurate about the original simple wording "more commonly known as football or soccer"? The reason why I described the edits as inaccurate is because its not just USA and Canada that call it soccer (what about Australia, New Zealand and Ireland?) and its not commonly known as football worldwide (in some other English-speaking countries perhaps). The etymology and names section deals with this adequately so I don't see why this excessive detail needs to be added. Barret (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Ridernyc (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Schwimmer

Hi, Truthiness. I've left a post at Lacey Schwimmer's talk page about our edits, and I hope you'll take a look at it. Basically it says that while the cited tweet was "timestamped, plus she rt'd a "happy 24th," the tweet only said, '"Had an amazing birthday @HydeBellagio thank you for everything! http://lockerz.com/s/221118718". It doesn't say 24th. And a timestamp is only when she tweeted. She could have been tweeting the day after her birthday.

But here's where it gets tricky: TV Guide, with all its editors and resources, does not have a birth date or birth place for her. I've been to Biography.com, FilmReference.com, and People.com, and none of them have a biography for her. TMZ just copied the Wikipedia text. I can't find her birthdate at any reliable third-party source so far. I'm sure you can see, then, why we need to be careful about something that's going into an encyclopedia, which people will take as gospel. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody won at "WWE NXT Redemption".

Nobody won any titles at WWE NXT Redemption for any reasons. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote issue

Hi. I recently reverted your edit to Window Seat (song), regarding the hatnote for song titles. I opened a discussion here at the WP:Hatnote talk page about it, if you're interested. Dan56 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada at the 1976/2012 Olympics

Please do not add information that is unnecessary to the article (2012). I also removed two see also links as they are found in the infobox at the top of the page. As for the 76 Games I had to move the fact to the top of the page. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NXT Redemption Winner

Please, stop saying that Bateman is the winner of NXT Redemption. We need soucres saying that Bateman IS the winner and WWE recognised as the winner of NXT Redemption, we can't say that he is the winner because Titus and Young were moved to SD. The competition was dropped, no winner. Also, looks his bio http://www.wwe.com/superstars/derrickbateman and Barrett's bio http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wadebarrett Bateman han't the secion Carrer Highlights nor the NXT Redemption Winner, Barrett has it.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious. WWE never says that he is the winner nor the competition ended. They only dropped and now, it is a new NXT without poll, rookie/pro...a entire new NXT. The season ended and never declared a winner.HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You can check my talk for more, but long story short, it was a separate season up until this year when the current IP holders went "Nah, it's not season 18 anymore".—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?!

What is your problem? There is no need to disambiguage the article Window Seat (song) any further. There are no articles on any other song titled "Window Seat". I invited you to this discussion, which you ignored. Seriously, communicate. Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are always more than one song(s) with the same name ([1]) The words you're citing refers to more than one song article, and it's outdated (Down to Earth, the example cited, is a dab page). Dan56 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Earth (Peter Gabriel song) and Down to Earth (Justin Bieber song)? Dan56 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the Bar (South Park)

Hi, fellow Colbert fan. Regarding your last revert, in which you stated in the edit suammary, "Per WP:LEAD "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text", that is a misrepresentation of my edit, whose rationale was the reverse of this; The rationale was not that everything in the Lead must be repeated in the body, but that detail in the body does not all have to be repeated in the Lead. The Lead is a summary of the article, which means it has less detail than the body, not the other way around. It is for this reason that the specificity of where on the White House grounds the event takes place, if only placed in one of the sections, should be in the article body. To put it in the Lead and not the body is to get it backward. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character aliases

Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Character aliases. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn

Oh so your 108. whatever. Yes they are because I've spoke to one of creators of this page, and went through the same thing with someone else a few months ago. They are cited CORRECTLY because I used resources from the list where they say they are reliable sources, AND well cited. Maybe you should read it, because you've deleted over 20 reliable/well cited resources that one of the creators said was okay to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.5.95 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live While We're Young

I've added some information you might like to read on the talk page for this article, including why your contention that the Beelzebubs voicing the Warblers is not accurate on this song. I misread the dates on your edits; kind of ironic that I'm the one who can't correct your error without running afoul of 3RR myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Live While We're Young#Adding Glee. Regards — Robin (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, TheTruthiness. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - Mr X 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy editing at Feminism

Did you really make this edit at Feminism contrary to the argument you made here at Men's rights movement and here at MOS talk? How is this not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Rights Movement

Hello The article is under probation, and as it says in that big red box in the editing window you can't revert more than once. You've added the same fact tag twice now in a very short space of time. While some consider this only one revert, but most wouldn't, since you've made the same edit twice. In any case, if you think these need citations, why wouldn't you simply add the citations that are already in the article up to the lead? Personally to avoid any possible problems, I'd recommend you revert and simply fix the problem yourself. While I am here, here is the official notification of the probation.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Slp1 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does Grove have to do with Groove?

I removed your addition of a link to Grove to the Groove disambiguation page last July, but you recently placed it back in. Why? Perhaps "Grove" sounds a bit like "Groove", but so does "Grave", "Grieve", and probably a half dozen other words. If you're thinking that someone might misspell "Grove" as "Groove", and would thus appreciate such a link, see of Style/Disambiguation pages/Misspellings: although someone might mistype and add the additional "o", no one will be thinking the "oh" sound in "Grove" needs two "o"s.

I also note you added a link from the Grove disambiguation page to Groove, perhaps on the same theory. In both cases, note that your links are the only ones where misspelling is the justification (excepting of course different words with the same meaning).

Please let me know your reasoning. thanks. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two links: if you decide to restore them, please document your reasoning. Thanks. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when restoring the links you cited MOS:DAB: thank you. However, see the first sentence in the section on misspellings: "Common misspellings should be listed only if there is a genuine risk of confusion or misspelling". No English speaker would confuse the sound or spelling of Groove with Grove, so this does not support your position. I will be removing the links again. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a third opinion. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Technical_13 feels the links are appropriate, so I'll leave them be. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking (martial arts)

Your recent editing history at Breaking (martial arts) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Your claims are not in the "source". Provide quotes and timestamps for each claim on the talk page before attempting to revert again 24.8.199.42 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Hello, I've collapsed and archived your recent comments at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Substantial parts of your very long post contained violations of the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines by engaging in general discussion of the subject and expressing your personal opinions rather than discussing specific and actionable article improvements. You are welcome to continue discussing ways to improve the article, but please avoid the personal opinions. Continued violations of the policies and guidelines governing talk pages will be considered disruption and ultimately will result in blocks or bans. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking (martial arts)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Bangerz

I've nominated Bangerz for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Bangerz. Since you participated in the RM discussion for Bangerz (album), you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to Beck v. Eiland-Hall, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 00:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted to does not match what's in the sources. Ignoring for a second that one of the sources is an opinion piece written by one of the accused & another is citing an internal investigation by the accused site...the only thing proven false is that the ex didn't write an official review of her game. The Forbes article cited states "the revelations led to further questions", which is not the same as "Those subsequent allegations were shown to be false". The way you have it worded now implies that everything about Gamergate has been proven false, but it's just that there isn't a "review" by Grayson (there is this article he wrote with her game used as a screenshot and called a "standout" & "powerful" for example: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/). My edit was a more accurate reflection of the sources given...but I don't see how it's "irrelevant" as Tarc claimed that the other two sources are by people accused of impropriety claiming that "everything's fine, no issue here". Would we allow a controversy about the Obama administration to be written off as "all the claims were proven false" using an op-ed by Obama and an article reporting on an internal review by the White House saying there was no wrongdoing? --TheTruthiness (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Across the Hall (2005 film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Across the Hall (2005 film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.123celebz.com/movies/across_the_hall/plot.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tek022 | Comments? 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about an article you posted about me.

I have a question about a post about myself. Stone1990zach (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Worlds Finest. Thank you. —NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Worlds Finest. 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. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.

WP:VERIFY is a key policy, undoing edits that maintain that policy can be considered vandalism. --TheTruthiness (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certain policies, yes. If I were to file a report against this, it would count as edit-warring (believe me, I've filed plenty, I know what I'm about). What I find interesting is how once you were warned for edit warring, an IP editor came and backed you up on this one particular article, one who's never even edited the site before, and hasn't edited it since. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certain policies, like one of the cornerstone requirements for Wikipedia, yes. Your last attempt to file an edit warring report on me was summarily dismissed so I'm not sure why you think you're an expert on them? FYI that's totally not true- a baseless report on someone who didn't actually break the rules (even if it wasn't an 3RR-exempt edit) wouldn't count. Accusations /= convictions. What I find interesting is how you act like a Wikipedia expert and then break WP:CIVIL by making a not-so-subtle allegation of sock puppetry...especially since I wouldn't even need one since wasn't close to breaking 3RR and WP:V isn't determined on consensus. Not to mention there are perfectly reasonable explanations for it, like it legit being a different editor or WP logging someone out of their account & they didn't realize it for example. I strongly recommend you review Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Edit warring & Wikipedia:Civility/Wikipedia:No personal attacks since there seems to be a sizeable gap between your perceived & actual understanding of these policies. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, lad. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were kings

I won't wrestle over this but one would expect that the phrase would show up somewhere in the target article for it to be a valid disambiguation entry and you are right - it is pointless to have a single entry on a disambiguation page. Two solutions would be to modify the target article so that the phrase shows up (is it really that common and strong of a connection) or add another entry. Perhaps When We Were Kings (Wes Carr song).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot

Perhaps fix the citation? The cite on that info is dead. Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos

Hi. While looking through recent changes I noticed you're getting close to violating WP:3RR on Milo Yiannopoulos. I have no intention on getting involved in that particular dispute or article myself, but wanted to give you a courtesy heads-up about the existence of this WP policy in case you weren't aware. --Fëanor (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please stop reverting so much. If I see you make one more revert in the next month, I will block you. Take some time to practise communication and compromise rather than just reverting all the time. --John (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of We were kings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We were kings 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/We were kings 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. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos

TheTruthiness, I have just edited Jeremy Gabriel's page. Seems like that page might need protection against trolls and detractors of Gabriel's. As you said, labelling Gabriel "amateur" or "wannabe" singer is pure POV, especially since he got a record deal and sings professionally.

On another note, I've noticed the edit war that occurred two months ago on Yiannopoulos' page. I have read your edits, seen your sources, read statements written by other editors, and I'm on your side of the argument. I do not see anything wrong about your edits and the sources used. If anything, I feel a certain bias from the three other editors. Why only mention critics of Yiannopoulos' behaviour What about Jones? You can read my arguments on the Milo Yiannopoulos Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#Twitter_controversies Is it true that Breitbart and IBTimes cannot be used as sources? Israell (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! They're very biased against anything pro-GamerGate, especially Milo. Breitbart is used as reliable sources on other pages, but for GG-related anything that positively covers the movement is magically made "unreliable". Tons of left-wing Breitbart equivalents are considered reliable- Wikipedia is a joke. --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you and User:Confession0791 win

Quick! Delete this post! Otherwise you might actually read it!

and make sure you delete the post in the other guy's page, lest he reads it! Very well, Lauren Southern is a libertarian because a few glorified blogs say she ran in an election on the LPC ticket. Deletion is better than discussion—it's the Donald Trump way. In a way I almost hope he wins—you likely Americans might just deserve him. I'll give up editing WP for a few days perhaps—save for ELs to WT—because I'm ticked and I don't like being ticked—and yes, it's my problem—if such minor editing is okay with you guys. Savour your victory. You won!! You guys should also edit Conservapedia—there you can really pile on how great Lauren Southern is—maybe. Meanwhile, I'll be more skeptical of WP articles—why even bother when it's that little more a mirror of the aforementioned glorified blogs. I suppose I should start my own website—it just might be a better use of time. If you wish to reply, do it on Truthiness page. Merry Samhain.199.7.156.134 (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:199.119.232.217#Talk:Lauren_Southern
the IP I'm currently using.

"Talk pages are used to discuss the article, not the subject, thus your comments don't belong. Also, not endorsing 1 of the US Libertarian Party's candidate doesn't make one not a libertarian...especially when you're talking about a Canadian ;) --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

As I've indicated above, I will not respond to this. Again TheTruthiness speaks and I will not challenge him, but I figured his words there should be posted here.

Make America Great!!
199.7.156.134 (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TheTruthiness. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Online Abuse Prevention Initiative shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Psychonaut (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird I don't see you leaving similar comments on the other people pages who are engaged in the same "edit war". --TheTruthiness (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only editor I've warned because you're the only editor who has tried to insert the same or substantially similar content into the article six(!) times in three days while largely ignoring the discussion on the talk page. You've been around here long enough to know that this isn't how we work. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit of yours, are you really determined to star this edit war again? Don't try to be sneaky by targeting the disambiguation page rather than the main article. Your only options here are to gain consensus for your edits on the talk page, refrain from editing the articles altogether, or get blocked for disruptive editing. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate

Hello! Regarding your edits to the Gamergate controversy article: it's probably best to discuss the changes on the talk page now that they've been challenged (see WP:BRD). Regarding the feminism thing, I think ForbiddenRocky was referring in their edit summary to the fact that your summary said "nothing in the article on feminism labels it as left-wing, thus an opposition to feminism doesn't equal right-wing". It's unclear why you removed "right-wing" just based on that summary, given that multiple reliable sources refer to Gamergate as rightwing, and it's unclear why the feminism article has any bearing on the inclusion of the term in a different article. I could be wrong on that interpretation, though; perhaps ForbiddenRocky will explain more. Regardless, the talk page is a better place for it than edit summary conversations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare is correct about what I meant. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message

TheTruthiness, can you be reached outside of Wiki (for further discussion on Milo and other topics)? Thx. Israell (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TheTruthiness. 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]

Faith Goldy

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Jimmy Vivino

Would you explain why you reverted my edit on Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TheTruthiness. 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]

WWE 24/7 Championship

Yes, it is defended across all the brands. Whether or not we actually see it on every brand is yet to be seen, but that's the rules of the championship. You're adding extra words in there which just say the same thing. We also do not need to spell out "24/7". Basically everyone knows what that means, and if they don't, that's what the link is for, which provides a brief definition of what it means. --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't defended across all brands, just that the 24/7 rule/FCA wasn't the reason it is. Please take the time to actually read and understand edits before reverting them- our edits weren't "literally saying the same thing", yours was saying something factually incorrect. Nothing wrong with a quick explanation, "24/7" is a cultural thing & you shouldn't assume that everyone knows the same things you do. Also 8 words in parenthesis is not a big deal in exchange for clarity. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to actually read it, but you are failing to comprehend what is being said. It is not factually incorrect. You say the rule is not the reason, but it actually is the reason it is defended across the brands (it's the whole point of the title). "It is defended against wrestlers across all of WWE's" is the exact same thing as saying "it is defended across all of WWE's brands". This is simple English. It is implied that it is defended by wrestlers (who else is going to defend a professional wrestling championship in a professional wrestling promotion?). The parenthetical explanation is unnecessary for the aforementioned reasons in my original post, and there's already an explanation of it ("anytime, anywhere"). --JDC808 ♫ 05:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alert: blp

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

It appears that you may have violated the discretionary sanctions applied to the Kirsten Gillibrand article. Please consider reverting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit the article, a large box appears, which states:

You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Erica Thomas. Please read WP:TBAN to see what topic banned means.

You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring with respect to Erica Thomas

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]