User talk:TimothyHorrigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, TimothyHorrigan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Second that welcome. Also, if you are interested in music, you might want to check out Portal:Music. TheJabberwock 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject AFL Hi mate, if you're a fan of Aussie rules, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL (join by adding your name to the list of participants) and the Australian rules football portal. Also take a look at Category:VFL/AFL players and feel free to drop me a line with any questions, or on the WP:AFL discussion page. Cheers!

Rogerthat Talk 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

July 4[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Lee Harvey Oswald on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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.

Mitt Romney[edit]

On a side note, you said, in your edit summary: the veto works the same way in Mass as it does elsewhere in the USA: the Governor can't amend passed bills. He either signs the bill as passed or vetoes it. I'm pretty sure that Governors of Massachusetts have the authority of the line-item veto, unlike Presidents of the United States. --AaronS 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Life[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a primary source, so all the content that goes into articles has to be verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS. WP:V is a founding policy for wikipedia and states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth. So while something may be true, unless you can back it up with a source it can't be included in articles. There is a section on WP:OR which defines what original research is in the context of wikipedia. Anything that falls under that will need a citation. Anothing thing to keep in mind, especially when dealing with online subjects is that blogs and forum postings are not typically accepted as citations except in very limited fashions because of their self-published and unreliable nature.--Crossmr 04:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) My point was that the campaign has an official Second Life site. I learned of it from a campaign worker, who put out press releases, etc., not from "original research." By your logic, the official web site should also not be mentioned on Wikipedia, either--- because at some point someone had to do "original research" to verify that it existed. The content available from the Second Life site duplicates what's on the web site, so it's not a huge loss having the Second Life site missing. User:TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

History of baseball in the United States[edit]

Hey, nice job snipping some of the unsourced melodrama from History of baseball in the United States. It's about time someone started getting that article into some form of encyclopedic tone. Keep it up! (You might want to include some edit summaries though or else whoever originally added it may get upset.) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Laura Branigan[edit]

The Laura Branigan article has a history of POV edits (not talking about yours) by a couple of factions with a strong sense of "ownership" of the article and who seem to consider themselves sacred guardians of Branigan's memory or whatever. Part of that is the whole melodrama about which web site is "official" and who owns the domain name. The names of the people involved, etc., are pretty much irrelevant and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia must remain strictly neutral in reporting on the dispute, including citing only to reliable, trusted, third-party sources. So all the stuff that's on one of the web sites about what Branigan did or didn't say or other self-serving material is not an appropriate source. We need to stick to the verifiable facts, in this case that's the WIPO case decision. In terms of undue weight the whole web site controversy deserves a couple of sentences at most. Best, --MCB 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


I saw this while checking RC. The last part doesn't make much sense unless you include Coulter's response. If you exclude it, then it doesn't state what Edwards replied to. Thanks, Mønobi 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I am letting you know that I am reverting your Huckabee edit because the information added about the nominations and the primary races is unsourced. Please find a source for the information. Jmegill (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson ...questionable claims[edit]

Hi Timothy, I am glad to see a like-minded editor who is concerned about the questionable and overblown claims in the Michael Jackson article. Here is a copy of the note I posted to the talk page of the MJ article. Like you, I have tried to edit or tone down the claims about how MJ "led MTV out of obscurity" and "revolutionized dance and music", etc, but my changes have been reverted.................................................................Here is my note to the article's talk pageNazamo (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) ___________________________________-----------------------------------The lede states that MJ's videos on MTV had the effect of "leading the relatively young channel out of obscurity." The source, an ABC News article about the devotion of MJ's fans only mentions MJ and the early days of MTV in one sentence, when it states that MJ put MTV "on the map." I have changed the lede so that it accurately states what the source says (put MTV "on the map"), but an editor has changed it back to the "out of obscurity" wording. Paraphrasing content is a legitimate and good technique. If the source had several paragraphs discussing the relationship between MJ and MTV in the 1980s, you could try to paraphrase it. But since the source only mentions the issue once, I argue that it is misleading to claim that the source says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity" when the source has a different tone, of saying he put MTV "on the map." A subtle difference, perhaps, but an encyclopedia has to be reliable.Nazamo (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, here is the sentence from the ABCnews article: "They may fondly recall how Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................I argue that the editor is adding POV (point of view) by purporting that the article says MJ led MTV "out of obscurity." The article never states that MTV was in a position of obscurity. Instead, it states that MJ's pioneering videos "put MTV on the map."Nazamo (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Melody Maker[edit]

This message was sent by someone named Sunderland06. The edit I made was NOT racially motivated: I said: "The Melody Maker was strongly supportive of the glam rock and progressive rock movements of the early 1970s. However, when punk came along around 1976, Melody Maker lagged behind rivals Sounds and NME in embracing the upheaval; of MM's staff, only Caroline Coon was strongly positive towards the new music." I could maybe see Sunderland06's point if we were talking about hip-hop or disco, but punk, glam rock and prog rock were all largely the work of white musicians. (In fact, I can only think of one prominent black early punk rocker, Poly Styrene of X-Ray Spex, although ska bands such as The English Beat and The Specials were integrated.) FWIW, the MM was also strongly supportive of the reggae movement of the 1970s, as well as the R&B of the time. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the edit, i am extremely sorry, i must have got the wrong guy, i'm sorry again.  Sunderland06  16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Please adhere to WP:NPOV when editing, and use and edit summary to explain your changes. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry if the warning gave the wrong impression. Although I agree with your points personally, I have to recognize the importance of presenting information neutrally -- it's not up to me (or wikipedia) to decide if a group is "liberal" or if O'Reilly's responses should be characterized as "claims" instead of "statements", it is up to the reader to conclude (or not) based upon the evidence presented. Regarding the wording of the warning, it is a standard warning template for persistent disruptive behavior. I have no doubt that this was just a misunderstanding and you need not worry. If you would like some help incorporating stuff into the article that complies with our core policies and guidelines, I'd be glad to help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD procedure[edit]

Hi Timothy. I note that you did not place the appropriate AfD tag on Tony Rezko when you made your nomination. I understand that the procedures are complicated and I've certainly messed them up before. However it's important to follow the procedures at WP:AFD carefully, particularly for controversial articles like this one. Failing to follow procedure can be grounds for overturning an AfD decision so you might want to have a look for your next one. Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Kulwicki[edit]

Please use a very reliable source to cite the facts that you added to the article. It is near FA nomination. Royalbroil 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed that he was the second reigning NASCAR champion to die. I believe that you're right, but I can't find it stated by a reliable source. Since I'm planning to submit the article to WP:FA very soon, it needs to have no unsourced claims. Feel free to add it back if you can find it from a reliable source. Forums are definitely not reliable (by the way). Royalbroil 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dale Earnhardt, Jr.[edit]

Hey, just wondering, with the biographical data (son/grandson/brother/sister/etc.) you added on Dale Jr. - was that a restoration of material somebody removed? (I'm not criticizing, I'm just wondering, as I would have thought that it had been in the article before.) Anyway, just a good job and kudos for either restoring it if somebody removed it (I would assume as vandalism), or adding it in if for some reason it inexplicably wasn't there to start with. --Umrguy42 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

Would you please stop what you have been doing for the last few months. If you can't edit neutrally then dont. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your pov edit's and inability to source anything[edit]

For the honest sake of clarity, your not a newbie at wikipedia so why do you still write in a pov manner without adding reliable sources? I don't understand your motivation, you do realize it is against wiki policy to edit in such a manner? Could you please reply to this on your talk page. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Lovers[edit]

Hi! I liked some of your edits to the Modern Lovers intro, but not others. Anyway, I've had a go at trying to combine the best of both efforts, but I don't suggest that my version is perfect. Hopefully we can work together to improve it without getting into edit warring stuff. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I see you've been asked before to provide citations for your edits. I've reverted you recent edit to Coldplay as you did not provide citations for the additions. I am sure you are aware that one of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability, not truth. It is possible that if you continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies that you may be blocked from editing. --JD554 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston (band)[edit]

Dude, I don't know what to make of your edits, you don't give rationale, and you didn't even sign your talkpage discussion. Don't be surprise if I rollback these edits. You need to provide reasoning for your edits, because this article is very popular and is edited often. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the addition of unsourced material on this date about Michael Jackson playing with Boston bordered on page vandalism. Please stop this silliness. --Whitelitr (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my edits. If you want to take out the info, go ahead: it is of minor importance. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, stop vandalizing the BOSTON page!!!--Whitelitr (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)(talk)

Vandalism? My September 29 changes were all based on reliable sources. I don't get it. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC) is not a reliable source of information. Please stop spamming up the history and vandalizing the Boston page Whitelitr (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And why isn't it reliable at least as a source of what Goudreau's side of the story is? And who put you in charge of the page? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Goudreau has an axe to grind with Scholz and does not miss a beat to misrepresent the facts. Using his website as a source causes the page to be inaccurate. Please stop this back and forth editing and inclusion of inaccurate sources Whitelitr (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are violating the Wikipedia rules if you are working for "Mr. Scholz" Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say I was "working" for anyone. You are making unsourced assumptions here like you are doing on the Boston page.Whitelitr (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive and unsourced edits to Wikipedia, as you have been doing on the Boston band page. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Whitelitr (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My additions came straight from Scholz's own web site. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

If you believe the lead needs changing, or shuffling around, please discuss it at the talk page. It's been stable for quite some time. Best. — R2 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but you need to chill out. I corrected your mouthfoaming edit about Limbaugh. You may have been slightly correct, but you didn't even bother to check the facts. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New message for you on Limbaugh discussion page, have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I also notice after visiting here that a lot of people revert your edits. Maybe you should take a hint?Jarhed (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doris Haddock[edit]

I have had to remove most of your 4 recent edits to the article because the intro you added to the lead contradicts info already in the article. The info you added about her 99th birthday I've left for now so that you can add a reference, but ones not added soon I plan to remove this as well.

Note: From the comments on you talk page it seems clear you do not add references to support your edits. Just to make sure its clear to you every single unreferenced edit is subject to possible deletion. If you wish to productively add to Wikipedia include references, otherwise your work my well be identified as vandalism. Highground79 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one of your edits was highly questionable: you deleted two items as "unsourced" which were verified RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE (in a table just below the text) and a third which had a bill number which could easily be verified. I did add a link to HB 35's Bill Docket page. The info in the Doris Haddock page was correct as well, DUDE! That's right I addressed you as DUDE! Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually every edit is subject to deletion... sometimes referenced material can be taken out just because it is unnecessary (or even because the reference itself was to a source with incorrect or irrelevant info.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CBS Records[edit]

Your edits to the CBS Records article included incorrect information which have been removed. First of all, when Sony bought CBS Records including CBS's interest in CBS/Sony Records in Japan, the Japanese record company was renamed Sony Records. Secondly, Sony only bought the rights to the Columbia name and trade marks from EMI, not the EMI Columbia catalogue which EMI still owns and issues on the EMI label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Blondie (band)[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Blondie (band)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Danny Bonaduce[edit]

Your edits to this page were in blatant disregard of the Wikipedia POV policy. The idea that television and radio have bias against conservative opinion is a matter of perspective, and even if it were not, the page is not a forum for that discussion. Edited to remove unnecessary political content/bias. --Barrowlands (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the other editors in the edit war have an ax to grind: they are deleting reasonable and truthful edits just because they reflect well on an ex-member of the band Boston who has been locked in a conflict with the leader for about 30 years. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate over whether or not Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford should be removed the 2012 Rep Primary Page[edit]

There seems to be yet another debate over Mark Sanford and now whether not Bobby Jindal should remain on this page. Since you are an editor on this page, I was hoping you would be interested in joining the discussion at the link below.,_2012#This_article_is_not_about_who_will_be_running.3F

Please provide your feedback! Thanks so much!

--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello TimothyHorrigan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,712 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Daniel Wattenberg - Find sources: "Daniel Wattenberg" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery[edit]

Hello, TimothyHorrigan. I responded to your comment about this article on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Please don't misuse the notability template.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I marked the revert as vandalism. I didn't realize you had a long contribution history. Apologies if your intent was not malicious. Feel free to open up something on the discussion page if you believe the notability criteria are not met.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

Please stop adding nonsense to this article otherwise I might conclude you are incapacitated and need to get some sleep. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • If we cannot use existing articles as reliable sources, we certainly cannot use deleted articles mirrored on other sites as such and I advise you not to add that again. If it matters, it will be sourced somewhere else. If not, it won't. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Two Seas Records incident did indeed happen. Jackson did sign a contract with them; they were financed by the Bahrani royal family; and nothing ever came of the deal. I have managed to source the announcement in Billboard. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rush Limbaugh, but we 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. Please note that the blog you cited as a source made no mention of gay marriage or of any of Limbaugh's views about marriage or sexuality beyond the fact that he is expected to remarry in the near future, and thus does not qualify for a source to the primary theme of your addition claiming he is opposed to gay marriage. --Allen3 talk 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 3[edit]

Please stop adding content which is incapable of substantiation to this article. Jackson's achievements are already well-documented without gilding the lily. Rodhullandemu 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And on Danny Bonaduce, active verbs ("presented") are preferred over passive ("was presented by"). Rodhullandemu 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reggie Bush[edit]

Thanks for your efforts to keep his article up to date, but I don't think we should be reporting what is still speculation (even if you and I think it's almost certain to happen). Especially with living people, it's better to hold off and get it absolutely right. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Yahoo! sports article appears to be a strategic leak by the Heisman people. If nothing else, the fact that they have been conducting their own investigation is newsworthy. (And is more than speculation.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jahn Xavier[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jahn Xavier has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the Jints[edit]

I answered your question here. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da NPOV[edit]

I see you are developing quite a pattern of POV alerts. Might I join the chorus of those suggesting that you review the POV, and general editing, guidelines? Your edits to the Adi Da page are completely unacceptable, without any accepted sources, and reflect a strong bias.Tao2911 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was correcting POV edits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Warning[edit]

Please restrict your comments on talk pages to suggestions and comments on improving the article. These comments [1] were deleted as more of forum-style comments, which don't help to build an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I ran afoul of the Talk Page Police, I see. I did not realize your anti-"FORUM style" ordinance was even in existence and I have been around for a few years: I thought anything related to the topic was allowable in the Talk page. My contribution was snarkily worded, but it raised a legitimate issue (i.e., that the Obama birthplace conspiracy theorists have to make some highly improbable assumptions which run counter to commonsense.) I have seen hundreds of more off-topic comments on Talk Pages... of course that may be because the Talk Page Police can't patrol every Talk Page. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice you seem to think you are somehow exempt from the rules (on a number of pages). To state the obvious, just because others break rules does not then give you license to. Why not aim a little higher?Tao2911 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You just left a personally insulting comment on my talk page, so I am entitled to respond. My only response is: why did you even bother? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree your comment did run afoul with WP:Forum; talking about the subject and not the article is a constant problem for that particular article. Having said that, your comment was hilarious. --Weazie (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I found it confusing, as it seemed to support both POV. The "back to Kenya" comment made me think it was an anti-Obama rant, since he was never in Kenya. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A summary of basic guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Since you didn't get the standard welcome template, and keep having problems with talk pages, sourcing, POV issues, here's some links and summaries to of most of the basic guidelines:

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teleprompter. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere[edit]

Please stop adding sarcastic crap to this article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion Requested[edit]

Hello! You have had an edit history with Tao2911 who has has been roadblocking my attempts to edit an article. In a small amount of time, he/she erased all but one line and one reference in the entire article. I did not open an investigation, yet others unrelated to me did as seen here:

I believe in my edits and can back them up, yet nothing can be added without an uphill battle. I can only spend so much time online. Any suggestions? Tao2911 has already me cry, twice and this is Wikipedia. Thank you for any suggestions. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Due to mine and others concerted efforts, this user was shown to be the subject of the page in question (Marisol Deluna, now deleted as non-notable). This user and 6-8 proven socks and IP's were all blocked indefinitely for sock creation, evading blocks, canvassing, etc. This is likely the cause of the fictional tears for Deluna's fictional character, Elizabeth Brown, kindly grandmother from New York, canvassing for every last ally.Tao2911 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Why did you care so much about the Marisol DeLuna thing? Some of the activity was questionable, but it didn't seem all that heinous to me. Deleting the extraneous references was OK, but deleting the article was overkill, and the personal attacks seemed way over the top. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't 'delete the article'. The umpteen editors who voted it non-notable led to its demise. If you actually read the sad tale of that page, you would see that I and others were simply led there in the first place by seeing the name "Marisol Deluna" absurdly inserted into lists of historical luminaries and cultural icons, and found a page clearly written by the subject as self-promotion. In defense against the many observations of that bald-faced reality, Deluna created sock after sock after sock (complete with elaborate back-stories she thought would somehow mask rather than point to the truth), evading one block after another. The more she said and did, the more editors she annoyed and brought attention to the page, sealing its (and her) fate. It's not that complicated.Tao2911 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much had to give up and go away. He is not a very nice person, and he makes up fictitious Wikipedia rules as he goes along. Luckily, the article I was most concerned with— Adi Da Samraj— wasn't that terrible to begin with. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

rush limbaugh[edit]

please don't add unsourced original research and non-neutral opinions to the page. Paintedxbird (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:CBS Records[edit]

You had contributed to the article CBS Records, please come to Talk:CBS Records and help decide which version of the article should be the starting point for further edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackie Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Cowlings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waiver wire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

As you are no doubt aware, talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for making a political point.[2][3][4] Please knock it off. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for making a political point. Please consider this your final warning. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
It has not ended. Please knock it off. [5]--ML (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who you guys are, so forgive me for not yielding to whatever authority you think you have. I stand by my comments on Ted Cruz's talk page. I do think Rafael Bienvenido Cruz deserves his own article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You can stand by your comments all you want but the fact still remains that the talk pages are not a forum for you to spout off your incorrect and annoying personal political opinions. Please knock it off.--ML (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Olympia Cafe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olympia Cafe 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/Olympia Cafe 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. StewdioMACK Talk page 02:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:John Carter (film). SummerPhDv2.0 15:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz[edit]

Wikipedia does not require or even prefer that info be directly from the horses mouth.Scott Illini (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)