User talk:Chal7ds

Earthen mound

Hi!

Do you plan to expand the article Earthen mound? As it stands, I do not think it belongs in wikipedia, as it says little more than "an earthen mound is a mound made of earth". The picture is nice though. UnHoly 19:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love the article Earthern Mound!

But where is the photo from? Is there more information? Trollderella 19:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Chal7ds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

By the way, you just need to type #redirect [[Article name]] for "see article" type pages -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions are considered non-notable and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 02:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

Hey, thanks for your enthusiasm, but we can't generally use cut and pastes from websites, there are copyright issues. So, if you're able to contribute content in your own words, please feel free to do so, but some of the things you've posted have to be deleted, no offense intended. We do sometimes have articles on individual products, but it really depends. In general, an article on a specific type of tool is better than an article on a specific brand of tool. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Copying content from other websites is a violation of copyright law, unless you have specific authorization from the copyright holder to do so. You appear to have posted copyrighted material at the article Vestax VRX-2000 Vinyl Recorder, and it will be removed. See the Wikipedia policy on copyright at Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. --Blainster 04:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed undone by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Mound.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mound.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kingstondubplatecutter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingstondubplatecutter.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Vestax-VRX-2000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vestax-VRX-2000.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 10:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Vrx2000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vrx2000.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 10:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Spam on Criticism of George W. Bush. using TW

April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Criticism of George W. Bush do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Versageek 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to John Kerry

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Aude (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article not notable? And I have the source material.

Kerry's comments have not been picked up by any reliable sources. See Google News In order to be notable and worth mentioning in this article, his comments and how you construe them need to be reported in some good reliable sources (such as major newspapers) that can be used as references here. Kerry does numerous speaking engagements all the time, answers numerous questions, and there is nothing particularly notable about this one. In this video, he repeatedly said "I don't know", "Well that's a new one to me" regarding the collapse of WTC7 and controlled demolition theory, and he says "You are the first people anywhere in the country to bring this to my attention". Kerry admits that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. No reliable sources find this notable or worth reporting on. In biographies of living persons, we have extra high standards for using reliable sources. What you have repeatedly added fails the reliable source requirement, as well as the notability requirement. There is no consensus for it, thus it's repeatedly been reverted by not only myself but numerous other users. --Aude (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you wanted to make a NOTE that John Kerry responded to a question about WTC7 at an article about WTC 7, that would make some sense. If they were including reactions by other famous people, that is. It is a "controversy" only within the limited discussion of WTC 7 theories, not with regard to John Kerry.

So again, I suggest you put any such note in the logical place ... an article about WTC 7. --EECEE 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confused response of someone who's hearing about these theories for the first time is not something worth any media attention or coverage by reliable sources. Thus, it's not acceptable in that article either, due to lack of reliable sources and notability problems. --Aude (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I suppose they could show up at every book reading and get the author scratching his head on video and post that as a "response." --EECEE 06:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at John Kerry. [1] [2] [3] [4] Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coel acan 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the new soviet union! :)

Don't get disgruntled. Everyone gets blocked when they violate WP:3RR. I have seen admins get blocked for it, and that happens on a fairly regular basis. It's not a judgment on your character or your contributions. It's just a means of halting edit warring, which is disruptive to the community. Please consider dispute resolution when the block expires, but first, discuss the changes you want to make, at Talk:John Kerry. Peace, ··coel acan 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing representative

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Marketing representative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Marketing representative. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:57, 4 January 2008 (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) 13:06, 23 November 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]