User talk:KlingonWarrior09

July 2008

Removing Vaild Links in Best of Both Worlds

Dear KlingonWarrior09

Thank you for your recent edits to the Best of Both Worlds page. However, you keep removing the following links to this page:

In music:

Best of Both Worlds Tour, the 2007-2008 concert tour headlining Miley Cyrus and her alter-ego Hannah Montana
"The Best of Both Worlds" (song), theme song to the 2006 television series Hannah Montana
Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert (film)

In other fields:

The Best of Both Worlds, a series of pornographic films

Unless there is a realy good reason why you are removing these links, then they really should stay. Please see the following page if you have any questions: Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Thank you again for your contributions.

Jvsett (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian politics

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Christian politics (index) has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. jnivekk (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trials and Tribble-ations (x2)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Trials and Tribble-ations, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Trials and Tribble-ations. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please cite a reliable source that this is a reference to the 1701-E. "Watch the episode" is insufficient on this project. --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario, California (x2)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ontario, California, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BlueRed 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ontario, California. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop changing the link to LA/Ontario International Airport. The airport article makes clear that LA was added to the facility's formal name in 2006 regardless of what local residents call it. Whoville (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

repeated maintenance tag removal

Please realize, you cannot remove the {{no copyright holder}} notice from Image:Heather ORourke.jpg without listing the copyright holder. That's a requirement for non-free images on the English Wikipedia (WP:NFCC#10a, the non-free content criteria), and cannot be skipped or bypassed. If the copyright holder is unknown or cannot be determined, the image will be deleted. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Heather.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Heather.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. --EEMIV (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" &/or Heather O'Rourke (x2)

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing images on a page is not "minor". --EEMIV (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you've uploaded another picture of Heather O'Rourke. I've tagged it as it is missing mandatory information relating to its source and copyright status. I know you're quite new here, but it would be a good idea to read Wikipedia's policies relating to the use of unfree media. (Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy). If there's anything you're unsure about I'd be happy to help. Rossrs (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring II

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Returning (from the matter below at #Restoration of msgs other than Welcome) to what drew my attention to your talk page,

_ _ you were warned above against edit warring, but went out of your way (unless your purpose was simply to enforce your personal version, without regard to quality) to revert three distinct edits by two editors, and thereby converted, a second time, the sensible structures you found, e.g.,

Titled expressive works:
- Dakota (song), a 2005 UK #1 song by Stereophonics
- Dakota (1945 film), a 1945 film starring John Wayne

to the ugly and obviously mistaken one

Titled expressive works:

- Dakota (song), a 2005 UK #1 song by Stereophonics
- Dakota (1945 film), a 1945 film starring John Wayne

which would have been easily avoidable if you had viewed the two-character edit summarized "→Culture Repair collateral damage" that repaired your (now, in context, obviously reckless) original edit, and

_ _ you likewise ignored my unusually thoro summary

Demote *Dakota (given name) to approximate significance among uses of Dakota; rem improper piping of article (rather than section) lk; Rem people section, see talk:Dakota#Two young actresses

from which you should have known that you were failing to respond to my 900 bytes of reasoning underlying that portion of the edit.
--Jerzy•t 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of msgs other than Welcome

In most cases, a user's talk page is considered to be subject to their own control (within limits, e.g. you may not alter the content of other user's signed contribs, anywhere).
However,

the rate at which you attract warnings from your colleagues,
your apparent reluctance to explain edits, and
your placing a heading "== Welcome To Trash Talking ==" at the top of the page
-- especially in the light of your failures, with regard to colleagues' warnings.
to respond, on this talk page or theirs,
to archive them, or
to comment, in the corresponding edit summaries, on the removals

collectively

reasonably raise the concern that you are ignoring those warnings and hoping to conceal their existence from subsequent visitors to your talk page,

and

at best add to the effort needed to detect editors consciously engaged in concealing patterns of their own bad behavior.

Consequently, for the time being, i regard you as a special case, and i will be reverting any further removals you do on this talk page.
I counsel you to endeavor, in general, to communicate more often, more substantively, and more collegially, about what you're doing and why, and especially about why you are acting (or better yet, would like to act) contrary to your colleague's approaches to the problems you jointly face. Many eyes is fundamental to what we do here, but a significant number of discussions about what those eyes see differently is also indispensible.
--Jerzy•t 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Are All Bullies—Preceding unsigned comment added by KlingonWarrior09 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 August 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to User talk:KlingonWarrior09. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. You're welcome to hate us for your opinion of us, if that gives you some kind of satisfaction. In any case, your choices are stop being so stubborn and irresponsible, or be blocked from editing.
--Jerzy•t 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Heather.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Heather.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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: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. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Mary

I'm not sure how deeply you were thinking about it, but where you arrived, reverting

Fanning is still yet to film the movie Hurrican Mary in which she plays a disabled teenager.

is a good example of a responsible edit. We already cover that film, in the table of her roles, with a date; careless spelling aside, the reverted material was unnecessarily vague in not mentioning a date, nor any hint of why her performance might have been under way for next year's film, nor explanation of the hint that the editor attributes the timing to her. And it's really about what is to happen in the future; as positioned, the suggestion was "she's spending the other 10 months of 2008 sitting around waiting for (or taking steps to sabotage) Hurricane Mary." Finally, there was not obvious way at hand to rescue and improve the text your removed; better, i think, to dump it and wait for a more suitable version to maybe come along.
--Jerzy•t 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]