User talk:Bilbobag

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ocean Grove, New Jersey, 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. JGHowes ^talk - 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ralph foto test 1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ralph foto test 1.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Ocean Grove, New Jersey. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk - 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Ocean Grove, New Jersey, you will be blocked from editing.

I add that, if reliable sources exist, you should bring them to the talk page to discuss the matter. Unfortunately, Xlibris is not considered a reliable source, as it permits self (or "vanity") publishing, which does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Repeated addition of material to Ocean Grove, New Jersey article without reliable sources after multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot continue to add material to this article without a reliable source. Once your block expires, please discuss the information and possible sources on the article's talk page (or here). Continuing to revert the article may result in additional, longer blocks. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Sincerely apologize.Was not trying to start confrontation. Am a 40 year Ocean Grover. Was having trouble learning your protocols. If you look at the last 4 - 5 postings I've made, you will see that each one has added new information, or source material. Was desirous of adding articles from 1992-94 in publication known as Ocean Grove Times. Unfortunately, this publication is out of business. Do believe that addition of beach badge issued by the governing body of Ocean Grove (the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association) qualifiies as a reliable, authoritative source. If you disagree, please let me know}}

I have contacted the admin that has blocked you to see about lifting the block early. While waiting for the block to be lifted, you may want to read and familiarize yourself with a few helpful pages about citing sources and using talk pages:

citation guidelines
reliable source guidelines
verfiability, one of the three cornerstone Wikipedia policies
using talk pages to discuss changes to articles
The Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, which looks at one method of reducing conflict over articles
The Three Revert Rule which it looks like you ran afoul of.

It does look like you are new here, and so were perhaps not aware of some of the finer points of Wikipedia editing. That's somewhat understandable, but use this block as a quick lesson in avoiding conflict. While being bold and editing articles is strongly encouraged, it is generally considered bad form to re-add something to an article several times when it appears that someone else is challenging the material by removing it. See the BRD cycle I cite above. The proper course of action when someone challenges an edit of yours is to go to the talk page to discuss the addition, so that you can perhaps help reach a consensus on how to add the information properly. If you need any further help, feel free to ask here, or leave a message on my talk page when the block is lifted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

After discussing with the blocking admin, it seems clear that you now understand policies and wish to work within them. The block is being lifted. Please read my above suggestions for working within Wikipedia conduct expectations carefully. Good luck and happy editing!

Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Grove article

To assist in the process, I've started a discussion at the Talk Page for the Ocean Grove article, with suggestions on how the information about Ralph the Fisherman could be incorporated into the article. See: Talk:Ocean Grove, New Jersey#"Ralph the Fisherman" JGHowes ^talk - 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph The Fisherman

Saw your comment about tis article. Doesn't the fact that A) he sits to this day on the Ocean Grove pier, and B) That Ocean Grove's governing body (Camp Meeting Assoc.) placed his image on the 2002 beach badge prove that he exists? Bilbobag (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An independent and reliable source that states that he sits on the pier and appears on the beach badge would prove he exists, and might even be a claim of notability. Other than that, we're just asserting that he exists, not proving it. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't a photo of the 2002 beach badge, that is issued by the governing body of Ocean Grove (a third party), indicate he exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbobag (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture would show that there's something on the badge, but what is it? Why is it there? That's what a reliable source would tell. Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ocean Grove Record

A tag has been placed on Ocean Grove Record requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Gromlakh (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ocean Grove Record

A tag has been placed on Ocean Grove Record requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Gromlakh (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCH page

You're welcome JGHowes ^talk - 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Ralph Foto Test 2.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Ralph Foto Test 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Ralph Foto Test 2.jpg|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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Old Al (Talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:2002 Ocean Grove 'Ralph' beach badge.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:2002 Ocean Grove 'Ralph' beach badge.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. 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 22:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Publishers Clearing House, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons

I have removed the section you added regarding "Contradictions Between the Bible and the Book of Mormon" in the Mormons article. You may want to discuss this section at Talk:Mormons. This article is about the people, not a criticism of the Book of Mormon. You may want to edit Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Criticism of the Book of Mormon for that. Also, please review the guideline on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, because the sources you are using do not appear to meet those requirements. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your MedCab request: I've closed your request because the guidelines at MedCab require some other form of dispute resolution to have been tried first. I'd suggest either Third Opinion or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've posted on the DRNBilbobag (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Your addition to Mormons has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan. Thanks for follow up.

I beleive I have abided by requirements of Apologetic Press regarding using their copyrighted material. Further, I confirmed this in a phone conversation with Mr. James Estabrook of Apologetics Press.

Their requirements are as follows:

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. :Bilbobag (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mormons shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 8, Mormons

Hi Bilbobag, your additions to Mormons have just been reverted again, and I would ask that you refrain from reverting again until consensus has been reached on the talk page. On Wikipeida, the burden of proof is on the person trying to add information, and there seem to be several editors who think your edits are not neutral and not reliably sourced, in addition to not being relevant to the article topic (see WP:COATRACK). I'd also advise you to be careful with your reverts, as you seem to be quickly approaching the 3 revert rule. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley. Appreciate the follow up. I've submitted to Wiki for a 3rd party opinionBilbobag (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be dispute resolution notice boardBilbobag (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can't help but ask though... Is your user name perhaps a reference to a Lord of the Rings character? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Publishers Clearing House, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jschnur (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Clearing House

Hi Bilbo. I wanted to let you know I'll be helping Publishers Clearing House contribute to Wikipedia in a PR capacity. My approach to COI is to offer content and make requests on the Talk page, then only make edits with permission from a volunteer that exercises their impartial judgement on the best way to serve our readers. I tend to help companies make substantially better contributions than they would otherwise. I haven't read the entire Talk page, but I see there was obviously some problems in the past with a hodge-podge of employees editing. I should be the only participant moving forward in a manner more compliant with our policies. Hoping we can bring it up to the Good Article rank eventually, with a little help from disinterested editors like yourself.

I wanted to introduce myself and apologize for some of the prior behavior. I'm about to post on the Christopher L. Irving article if you care to follow me there. CorporateM (Talk) 00:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilbo. Just an FYI, I asked Dennis Brown to chime in on the discussion. He said he was busy, but would take a look tomorrow. I always prefer to facilitate impartial editors to discuss the content than to find myself in a position of arguing or defending, as where I donate my time to Wikipedia on a volunteer basis, I find it contentious to argue with PR people, but more useful to discuss it with other editors. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blibo. I just wanted to see if you had any feedback on the Recent History-type section I've proposed here. If you need more time to review/etc. that's ok too, just let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 00:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilbo. Just wanted to see if there were any additional points of discussion before implementing the proposed Sweepstakes section here. It's only been up for a few days, so please let me know if you need more time. Hopefully I am not unduly rushing you. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilbo. Thanks for reverting that edit. I was considering bringing it up, but figured the article was monitored closely enough that someone would take care of it.

User:Pyrotec will be offering some feedback eventually at Talk:Publishers_Clearing_House/GA2 (which has to be added to your watchlist separately if you want to see it on your watchlist). I was wondering if when he provides feedback if you wanted to take a crack at making more improvements or if you would like me to keep driving. I thought it might be neat for you to slap a Good Article sticker on your user page. Everyone who contributes to the GA article is allowed to take credit for it, not just the nominator. I'm happy to keep working on it too, based on whatever his feedback is, just depending on however you'd like to proceed. CorporateM (Talk) 21:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notables in lists need their own Wikipedia articles

Regarding your latest edit to the article for Ocean Grove, New Jersey,WP:LISTPEOPLE specifies that notables in such lists as included here need Wikipedia articles of their own, along with reliable and verifiable sources establishing their connection to the place. The source provided does connect her here, but Michelle Davidson doesn't have a Wikipedia article of her own and does not meet the standard of someone notable for a single event. As such, this entry has been removed again and should not be reinserted until a article is created for her that demonstrates notability using reliable and verifiable sources. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can help with this. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:BLP1E, this refers to someone who is famous for one -- and only one -- event, and she hasn't achieed renown for her Channel swim. Being "one of only 1341 people in the history of the world, who has swam the English Channel" is not her claim to fame, we don't we have articles for the 1,341st person to fly in an airplane nor will we have one for the 1,341st person to walk on the surface of the Moon. There are tenuous, but vaguely credible, claims of notability here. Let's leave it for a few weeks and allow enough time for an article to be created establishing notability with reliable and verifiable sources. If it's created, we're set, but I will lean to removal if an article isn't created and brought up to snuff by mid-November. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn I've created a page for review. It's titled "Michelle Davidson". I believe it follows Wiki policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Biographical_notability specifically as it relates to the description in that section "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Welcome feedbackBilbobag (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work, and I've done some of it, but her accomplishments would appear to meet the notability standard. The main improvement would be the addition of reliable and verifiable sources from newspapers, magazines and books documenting her accomplishments, but the article is more than adequate as a starting point. Thanks for taking this on. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages

Hi Bilbo. I noticed that most of your contribs are related to Publishers Clearing House and was wondering if you had any interest in branching out into other articles. I recently bumped into Monroe College through the Request Edit queue and it needs a lot of work, but I'm just not sure I have an interest in college articles and since my wife was ripped off from private college Brooks College, I'm not sure I can be neutral about another private school.

I also always need collaboration on pages where I have a COI. Someone just added some original research[1] that is also redundant with actual sourced material on the page on the Yelp article where I have a COI. Like PCH, I've brought the page up to Good Article standards. Of course, just if you have time/interest and I hope we can keep you around the PCH page as well. We made a good team there I think and the extensive hammering of things out resulted in a good quality page. CorporateM (Talk) 23:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corp - First your timing is superb, as I was just getting ready to ping your for a proposed addition to the PCH page - so if you get a chance, take a look at my comment on their Talk page. Second, I'm really not that good at editing, specifically about correctly adding various type of cites. I tend to comment on pages that discuss something in which I have special interest or particular knowledge, but I'll give it a try - ping me when you want help.Bilbobag (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first item. I'll go take a look. For other areas I need help, there are four articles where I currently have a pending Request Edit and some are several weeks old. The Request Edit backlog was pretty backed up and I cleared out a good 50 of them, but obviously can't do my own ;-)

They are at Yelp (the crowdsourced local review site) James Butts (a California politician), WhitePages (the website), and RealNetworks. Although, to be honest, Request Edits probably isn't the best way to branch out, because it's pretty rough jumping into foreign articles on random subjects like that.

Off to take a look at PCH. CorporateM (Talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - someone took care of the Yelp item. CorporateM (Talk) 19:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilbo. I noticed that you added the new content, but not any of the suggestions I made, which I thought you agreed with/were going to make. Just thought I would check-in and see if I got my wires crossed, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey on the PCH page I re-wrote my response a few times (sorry for the confusion). I didn't see TheHill source, because the template code was incorrect and it just registered as a broken template in the references. I fixed it and see now that some of your proposed content is included in that source I didn't see previously. I think it's great (the epitome of everything that makes Wikipedia fantastic) that someone with a strong negative opinion about a company, and a sponsored editor from that organization, can work together in good-faith, despite every reason to assume bad faith. But I'm sort of wondering if we should get a third opinion again if we seem unlikely to agree. Lets try to hammer it out a bit longer, then ask someone else to chime in if we can't settle it before either of us get frustrated. CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - completly understand the re-writing. Agree that we should take another shot at compromise and if no consensus, go to 3rd party. For the record, it's not that I have "a strong negative opinion" about PCH. I think they've done wonderful things to advance direct marketing. But I also think that they employ a few tactics that - at least from an ethical standpoint - they know are suspect, and could use some improvement.Bilbobag (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

Thanks. Do you mind taking a quick look at what I just posted and letting me know if you are comfortable with that as a neutral notification for a third opinion? (let me know here as oppose to on the article Talk page) If you're happy with it, I'll go ahead and submit a 3PO request. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corp - I think we need to put the 2 options in context. My position is that A) this is a pattern by PCH, and that after 3 (arguably,4) agreements, a senate committee found that PCH is using the same tactics that they've previously agreed to avoid. The operative phrase being the "exact messages". This is much different than is "pushing the envelope of what was agreed to"; and B) I think it's very important to include that the investigation found thatd that new legislation maybe required. A neutral third party should understand that it's these 2 points I'm trying to communicate. As currently stated, this doesn't come across. Bilbobag (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think usually it's considered best practice to provide a/b type options without providing various arguments for either option. This allows the third party to make their own decision without any attempt to influence them. Let me ask someone that may be wiser than me. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really get a solid response on the issue from the editor I pinged. Do you think something like this[2] would suffice? I'm concerned that if we re-hash all the arguments from both perspectives, we'll end up with a long wall of text filled with editorialized POV. Generally speaking it's better to let the 3PO participant look at the article, content and sources themselves and form their own opinion, from my perspective. Naturally, if you want to include all four of your points, I'll want four of my own as well and we may never actually get a 3PO, because nobody wants to read all that. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilbo. I don't think the two of us will come to agreement and 3PO is intended to quickly resolve these kinds of minor disagreements. What do you think about proceeding with a 3PO? CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for itBilbobag (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bilbobag. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bilbobag. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bilbobag. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ralph Foto Test 1.jpg

The file File:Ralph Foto Test 1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]