User talk:Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Ryan Ross. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. 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.

Lra drama 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I do not think I should be blocked because I was telling people the truth about Brendon Urie's personal when they asked. I will NOT make this mistake again, but I was only telling about the current information about him that I know.}}

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

User seems to understand his mistakes & claims not to make the same mistakes again. My second block may have been a bit harsh in length too. I am willing to give this user another chance

Request handled by: Lra drama 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting the blocking admin. You have been blocked before, but to go from 31 hours to two weeks with minimal warning here seems rather excessive without further explanation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you say you won't make the same mistake again. Fair enough, and I am also releasing you from this block, because I am told a block that increases in length from 31 hours to a couple of weeks is a bit harsh. Unblocked. Lra drama 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

july 2008 panic at the disco

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lohan and Ronson

Have any of you seen the recent cover of "Life and Style" magazine? It shows Ronson and Lohan holding hands. This topic has been in a whole bunch of magazines that I have honestly lost count. In "People" magazine, they have both confessed to dating (and even went into a few deatils I will not mention right now) and Ronson has even both Lohan a 22,000 dollar ring. How could this be a violation when it's been confirmed many times in many different magazines? --Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding hands means nothing. If you can give us a link to the People article that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" and the "22,0000 dollar ring", please do so. If you can't, please stop adding tabloid crap to talk pages. Ward3001 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh PLEASE! Will you please, PLEASE read WP:BLP! There is nothing, NOTHING in the sources you put on my talk page that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" or that the "22,0000 dollar ring" was given to one by the other. Holding hands? I've held hands with hundreds of people, but that doesn't mean we're dating or romantically involved. I will praise you for one thing, however. You brought it up on the talk page rather than just impulsively putting this garbage in the article. I thank you for that. Ward3001 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why they decided to go public with their RELATIONSHIP" which seems like they could be dating": Seems to you maybe, but not to a lot of people. I'm in a relationship with hundreds of people, but they are friendships. I am not dating them.

"I couldn't find the magazine where they have both clearly confessed, so... I don't know": I'll agree that you don't know. In fact, no one knows except Lohan and Ronson about their personal lives. You read it in a tabloid or another source that refers to a tabloid.

"read the captions by the pictures especially of the ring": Look, People magazine is not exactly the hallmark of objective journalism. It is a fluff magazine, just a small step away from a tabloid. And even the pictures that you link to don't identify People as the magazine.

"wouldn't it be a little strange and redundant to go public with friendship": They haven't gone public with anything. They have never said anything to the press about this matter. It's everyone else who is making a big deal out of it.

"I am better than that": I'm not questioning what kind of person you are. I'm question the legitimacy of the sources in reporting that anything has been confirmed by Lohan or Ronson.

Please read the Lohan talk page, especially the RfC, in its entirety. I think you are not aware of the heated debate that has been raging. Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"many magazines usually only use that term when two celebrities are together romantically":Not exactly the kind of hard evidence needed to confirm that they are lovers. Again, please read WP:BLP, which demands that we edit conservatively with contentious material. So let's look at the facts that we know, not what Lohan's friends say (which by the way, I don't recall any named friend -- not "a friend" -- being quoted as saying they're dating). Neither Lohan nor Ronson have confirmed a romantic relationship. No one has seen them involved romantically (and please don't give me the crap about holding hands or kissing in public -- Britney Spears and Madonna kissed in public and no one is saying they are lovers). So we have no solid evidence from a reliable source that they are involved romantically. It is not conservative editing, and in fact it is libelous, to say that they are.

"Maybe they are not 100 percent correct, but they are very close": Nope, I'm not buying that. People (if that is even the source) is just too close to a tabloid.

"This kind of thing would never have happened if Lohan was suspected of dating some guy": I disagree. Wikipedia's BLP policies are very stringent, and conscientious editors who watch pages like Lohan's work hard to keep the poorly sourced rumors off the page, whether about males or females, gay or straight.

You and I are duplicating a lot of the debate on Lohan's talk page. Let's save some editing time for both of us and make our comments there. Besides, that's where the serious debate is going on. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ashlee Simpson, 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. Since the marriage is supported by sources, it is correct to include the spouse information in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:33, 30 September 2008 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]