User talk:Transkar

Image copyright problem with Image:D_Force.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:D_Force.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:Image legality questions. 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to World War I was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

Hello, Why did you blank World War I ? -- Curps 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you as a precautionary measure, but you can still edit this talk page. -- Curps 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it was an accidental mistake, I selected all then copied it. I was putting on my list of sources for school. My bad, wont happen again. - Transkar

OK, sorry about the block, it was just a precaution, you're unblocked now. -- Curps 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Satan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Satan.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Amato.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amato.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ali2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ali2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Peyna 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from re-adding this image to the article Muhammad Ali until source and license information is provided for it. It is likely a copyright violation and we cannot use it in its current state. Peyna 18:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Ali fraizewr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ali fraizewr.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Floyd Patterson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Floyd Patterson.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JAbeach 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Tysonbites.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tysonbites.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

worst article i have ever read

the page you gave that face eating tumor kid is barely usable. please try to get some kind of feel for wikipedia (and its' guidelines) before you attempt a page. come back when you can write something beyond the level of Highlights for Children. Joeyramoney 01:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Joeyramoney

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jkelly 02:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Frazier15.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Frazier15.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. 07:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Joe_Frazier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joe_Frazier.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. 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited :)

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! Addbot (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

Hello. I see you changed the number of casualties from the storm in the Hurricane Katrina article. Mind showing us a source where it said that? Tito xd^(?!?) 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Novemthree2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Novemthree2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 03:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Foreman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Foreman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:When We Were Kings.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:When We Were Kings.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Posalifrazier3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Posalifrazier3.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. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to George W. Bush, without giving a 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. Terence7 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Novemthree Siahaan

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Novemthree Siahaan. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Novemthree1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Novemthree1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Transkar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pool thingie

I saw you removed the unreliable source on Tim Pool's page today claiming he is far-right, somehow you even got the people on 4chan happy about this correction which is where I caught wind of it of all places. I want to say good job though, if you don't mind me saying! LucasImpulse (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you too for removing obvious non-neutral propaganda. Hats off to you friend! --SamZane (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very exciting that Wikipedia is read even in the darkest places on the internet, but that doesn't change the fact that the heroic edit has been reverted. LucasImpulse, SamZane, if you knew anything about what's reliable and what's not, you would know that Transkar's edit was not acceptable. Transkar, I'm going to leave you with two templates that have a link or two, to show you that a. we take these things very seriously and b. disruptive editing in the areas of American politics and of biographies of living people is a matter of concern, and administrators have been given certain tools to prevent disruption. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I would quite like to know why you consider articles that attack character as reliable, and furthermore, unbiased sources. LucasImpulse (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was acceptable because you are doing character assassination and non reliable methods of editing. Since when is someone who supports abortion, gay marriage, and social programs far right? Just stop this nonsense already with the bias articles. It's getting ridiculous the unethical information warfare that's occuring here. Transkar (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Transkar. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring (Fox and MSNBC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.). –dlthewave ☎ 14:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits ar evening reverted by an editor who has been proven unreliable and not listening to sources.

You aren't doing your job. Do your job or get off the site. You're ruining the branding and reputation of Wikipedia, not that it was great before but you're making it worse. Transkar (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for edit-warring, likely WP:NOTHERE. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Novemthree Siahaan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Novemthree Siahaan 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/Novemthree Siahaan (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]