User talk:Topclaw

Februrary 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Belgian Gardens, Queensland, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Wiki Townsvillia n 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather Part II

Hello. You may have noticed that I've reverted your multiple attempts to add the word "lamenting" to the plot section of The Godfather Part II, in the description of the final image of Al Pacino as Michael Corleone sitting alone in the Corleone compound. You should know that I've also removed other editors' attempts to add descriptive words there (such as "contemplating") for the simple reason that there is no way to confirm what the character is thinking at that point. There is no dialogue, and no voice over to explain the character's inner thoughts, and the director has not provided any other means for us to know what's going on inside Michael's head. I think this was deliberate on Coppola's part, to allow us to project onto Michael our own feelings at that moment, but that's speculation on my part -- in any event, there's no visual or scripted support for any additional words there.

Please consider giving up the attempt to add "lamenting" to the plot description at that point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: making the same edit using an ISP isn't going to get it accepted any easier. If you think you have a case to make why "lamenting" should be included, please go to the talk page and lay it out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dan Ilic, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Dan Ilic was changed by Topclaw (u) (t) deleting 8223 characters on 2010-02-25T05:35:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Hungry Beast 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, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Egmontaz♤ ^talk 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Marc Fennell constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions, edit summaries

I nearly reverted your edit to Hungry Beast because it removed an entire section without explanation. I revised my position when I read the talk page, but people can't be expected to do that all the time. The next time you delete a section of an article like that, could you use the edit summary field to explain your changes or point to the talk page of the article? It's only a matter of time before someone reverts you because you didn't clearly explain the reasons for your edit. Thanks. —LedgendGamer 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Putin decade exodus

The article Putin decade exodus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The term is a sensationalized journalistic neologism found in few media sources, with less than 1000 Google search results, and that's greatly multipied by republishing. According to the statistics, emigration from Russia steadily decreased in the last 10 years from the upsurge in 1980s-1990s, with only 25,357 emigrating in January-October 2011 [1], and that's with 252,881 people arriving to Russia in the same period, that is highly positive net migration. Emigration from Russia is 20 times lower than, say, from Germany [2] (734,000 in 2009) or the United Kingdom [3] (336,000 in 2010). As such, this article is hopelessly POV under the current title.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Stella Young at ABC Perth Event.png

Thanks for uploading File:Stella Young at ABC Perth Event.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]