User talk:Danielleevandenbosch
Welcome!
[edit]
|
A tag has been placed on Cs20 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Yanni3.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yanni3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Prod
[edit]
The file File:Planking on a people mover.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned image, low quality, no meaningful encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Hot n now in Sturgis, Mi.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned image, no encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
March 2021
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Mike Shirkey 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You’re in an edit war. The information you are posting is biased and slanted ron paul (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
[edit]
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The entire article is a hit piece. Sorry. ron paul (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- LOL, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Long-term low edit warring at List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign
[edit]Your recent editing history at List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign 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.
Yes, I did see your previous attempt. It was reverted. You should not have tried again. -- Valjean (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Not here. Since December 2017 only makes partisan edits attacking content, editors, Wikipedia, and it's policies
[edit]Why are you here? Is it just to whitewash right-wing content and persons? If so, you are not here to build an encyclopedia and risk getting blocked. Stop attacking what you consider "bias" here. We are just documenting what RS, so even if they don't agree with your POV, stop tilting at that windmill.
Messages like these are not helpful at all:
- "Who is this guy?... He keeps deleting my changes to pages and making threats against me. He is the reason why you should never support Wikipedia. But with this whole cancel culture he’ll probably delete this post too for being offensive. 1984 stuff from this guy"
- "This page is edited written with a lot of liberal bias by Moboshgu." Attacking a highly-respected admin like Muboshgu isn't cool.
- "Wikipedia has been hijacked by evil people on the left. My advice is spread that news to everyone you know."
In fact, nearly every edit since 12:06, December 14, 2017, has been some form of partisan attack on content, editors, Wikipedia, and it's policies. I think that makes the case for an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Valjean, I am surprised to hear that I have added
a lot of liberal bias
to Mike Shirkey considering that I have made one (1) edit to it, which was reverting this person's vandalism to it. Anyone talking aboutevil people on the left
is likely NOTHERE. I'll consider myself too WP:INVOLVED to take any action on it myself, but an uninvolved admin may find this of interest. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The file File:Friends enjoying ice cream.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused personal photo. Out of scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
NOTHERE and personal attacks
[edit]You are clearly WP:NOTHERE and not trying or willing to learn. I also removed your nasty personal attack against User:Doug Weller. You are still blocked, but your access to this talk page should also be removed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Valjean Yeah, as they aren't asking for an unblock there's no reason for them to have access to their talk page. I don't care about idiotic comments about me. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]