User talk:DanSSwing

Hello. I have removed your additions to Pro-choice because without any citations they appear to represent original research, which is forbidden. I encourage you either to find some citations to back them up or to discuss how your contributions can be improved on the talk page. Thank you. Marnanel 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wally Farkas

A tag has been placed on Wally Farkas 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 band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JöиÁ †ĥăИ — Quality, not quantity. 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona

Sir, the 5% rule is in place because the infobox only has major candidates. The article still lists all the candidates, even the minor ones that have no shot at winning the election. Yeah, I have a bias. But we have come to consensus numerous times before. The infobox does not imply that only 2 candidates are in the election, it implys there are only 2 major candidates. The minor candidates are still listed in the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:David Nolan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Nolan.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:David Nolan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Nolan.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Saibo (Δ) 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:David Nolan.jpg

I, Jay Christopher Walsh, the creator of File:David Nolan.jpg, have submitted a creative commons license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 11/23/2010 giving Wikipedia permission to use this photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.128.153 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anti-abortion violence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[Organizations that support abortion have responded to anti-abortion violence by lobbying to protect

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DanSSwing. You have new messages at Talk:Family Research Council.
Message added 15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please join the discussion. There is currently no consensus to add this material. Several editors have objected. Please share your thoughts. - Mr X 15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at American Family Association 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. - Mr X 18:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to American Family Association, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]