Jump to content

User talk:Copyrights once lasted 56 years

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Copyrights once lasted 56 years, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Copyrights once lasted 56 years, good luck, and have fun. – Skr15081997 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Don't dare edit me", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could easily be read as an aggressive challenge to other editors ("don't dare alter my edits"). Disruptive usernames are discouraged. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't dare edit me (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)it was meant as a jokeDon't dare edit me (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I figured that after checking your edits, which seemed fine and helpful. But my first flickering thought when seeing "Don't dare edit me" on my watchlist was that you were an angry editor with a superiority complex, trying to bully others away from fact-checking your work. You'd have an easier time engaging at Wikipedia if that wasn't everyone's first impression of you! --McGeddon (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!! I've just moved to change my username. If weight changes were only so easy! Don't dare edit me (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Perez

[edit]

Do you have the book Lame Brains and Lunatics. I think we can nominate the Marcel Perez article for DYK section of the main page. For that an interesting hook is needed. The article is sourced, is new enough and has more than the minimum requirement of characters (min. is 1500 chars). If you have the book then perhaps we can add some interesting fact about him and then nominate it. What do you think?--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, That sounds OK , but no, I do not have the book... I got my info about it on the internet. Thanks for making the entry so good...Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the article for Did you know section.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ThanksCopyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for all your thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)You have done so much good work!!!!Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

[edit]

The above Wikiproject might interest you.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks- Eeek! It looks complicated... I will look at it in detail after I get groceries.Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marcel Perez

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marcel Perez

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article, and for your thank clicks! One a day is enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I smiled! Thanks are great, and I use them a lot, but keep it to one per topic (if I remember). There's a record of the clicks, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at The Janoskians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. AlanS (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Hello! I have little interest in edit wars or the Janoskians- I learned of them only today. But I am interested in truth and facts, and when people -perhaps adolescent fans unfamiliar with the law- suggest that the airline story I added to the Janoskian page, as related by writer John Hodgman, is not reliable, I fear they may be putting themselves in jeopardy should Mr. Hodgman choose to bring legal proceedings. Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've just made yourself a huge mistake there my friend. AlanS (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is discussion of your legal threat at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_for_reverting_material_with_unreliable_source_material. AlanS (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has zero tolerance for legal threats, however oblique. We're all here editing an encyclopedia as volunteers. It is completely inappropriate to attempt to steer content discussions by making vague threats about legal accountability. Specifically "I am interested in truth and facts, and when people -perhaps adolescent fans unfamiliar with the law- suggest that the airline story I added to the Janoskian page, as related by writer John Hodgman, is not reliable, I fear they may be putting themselves in jeopardy should Mr. Hodgman choose to bring legal proceedings." is not a friendly warning to steer clear of defamation but a limp bit of concern trolling which places the editor you're in conflict with in the position of agreeing with your version or facing some consequence for normal editing. I'm not going to block this account as the threat itself is self-evidently baseless, but you're not impressing anyone by raising it. Do so again and the account will be indefinitely blocked. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. If you listen to the cited podcast- which is decidedly "adult" or "x-rated" in its humor- you will hear, near the end, Mr. Hodgman describe the airline incident in great detail. Why his honest account of the incident should be challenged, or excluded from this page, is baffling to me. Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK podcasts from blogs aren't generally considered to be reliable sources. Have a read of WP:RS. I'd suggest if you're going to re-insert the material that you have some news coverage. You will not find me objecting if you have reliable sources. AlanS (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure: The statement "I am interested in truth and facts, and when people -perhaps adolescent fans unfamiliar with the law- suggest that the airline story I added to the Janoskian page, as related by writer John Hodgman, is not reliable, I fear they may be putting themselves in jeopardy should Mr. Hodgman choose to bring legal proceedings." constitutes a legal threat against editors working on this article. Regardless of your opinion on the content, you cannot threaten editors with legal action or speculate that normal edits will invite a legal response from a third party. Is that unclear? Protonk (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yes, to me it is still unclear. As far as I know, no legal threats were made by me. And I remain confused as to why Mr. Hodgman, or a factual statement made by this renowned author, in front of a live audience, recorded and published as a podcast, might not be considered as reliable. By the way, the Wikipedia link to The Janoskians website seems to be kaput

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Copyrights once lasted 56 years: Ok. I'll try to explain. First, though I'm not a lawyer, defamation laws in the US are relatively clear cut. Choosing not to cite a particular person as a source when writing an article nowhere near approaches anything constituting defamation. Specifically, claiming that a personal anecdote isn't a reliable source (the phrase reliable source being a term of art on wikipedia with specific meaning) is pretty mundane. Second, although we can all disagree on whether or not Hodgman is a reliable source, if one of us speculates out loud that such a discussion would invite a legal response from a third party, as you did, we're suddenly no longer having a reasonable conversation about sources but instead forced to privilege one view (yours, in this case) on his reliability or face some actual consequences.
  • You didn't make a legal threat on your own behalf. Meaning that you didn't say anything like "change this article or I'll call my lawyer and sue you." What you did say was, however, a legal threat because you stated that editors going about their business making normal edits to the encyclopedia could be liable if Hodgman decided to sue. That's paraphrasing but the language you used was very clear. You specified a preferred course of action for editors to follow and intimated that should they not follow it, they could face some legal action. Whether it's your lawyer or someone else's is immaterial. I'm going to ask you to retract this threat and I'm going to need some sort of affirmative response that you understand what you've threatened AlanS with. Preferably sooner rather than later. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

One: I don't think I ever said anything like Choosing not to cite a particular person as a source when writing an article anywhere near approaches anything constituting defamation.

Two: I've read the reliable source page and am confused as to why Hodgman, his story, or the podcast in question might be considered unreliable. Could you cite the sections, please, that might lead you to believe otherwise?

Three: If it can be verified an assertion has been made and published (as it has been here), and that it has been made by a reputable source (as it has been here), why is it judged unreliable? Was my mistake in not phrasing my submission as "John Hodgman alleged that..."? If so, all quoted written/spoken declarations on Wikipedia would have to be similarly phrased.

Four: If a President's radio-only speech is broadcast and archived on the net, is only a newspaper's coverage of the speech reliable, and not the actual "archived on the net" speech itself? And what if no newspaper's coverage prints the speech in full?

Is it forbidden to quote the content of a 1940 Jack Benny radio routine when the only source for it is a recording on the internet archive or a Benny podsite?

Five: I was not previously aware reliable was a term of art on Wikipedia (I know the meaning of words can change over time, I'd just rather it not happen by Orwellian edict). My initial response to the deletion was made under the impression that Mr. Hodgman and/or his statement was/were being judged unreliable in the commonly accepted meaning of the word.

Six: If the initial deletion had been made with a comment along the lines of "podcasts are not allowed as Wikipedia sources," I would have disagreed for many of the reasons mentioned above, and I would have thought the rule goofy, but I would not have attempted a re-submit unless I could find a written source.

Seven:But instead, with the deletion were comments like (Not a reliable source) and (sources are not reliable). And the fact is, I've heard Mr. Hodgman speak, and I've read his writings, and I find him quite reliable. My objections to The_Janoskians airplane incident deletion were thus due to the fact that the story/source were deemed not reliable in what I took to be the commonly accepted meaning of the word.

Eight: I obviously meant no legal threat on my own behalf- after all, no one had libeled nor slandered me- nor was a threat meant on behalf of anyone else. Here is what I was attempting to convey: If you/anyone, perhaps never having been aware of Wikipedia, were to Google your/his/her own name, and find it somewhere on a Wikipedia discussion page, where you/he/she, or an honest statement of yours/his/hers, was judged unreliable, your/his/her best reaction might be to ignore it all. But you, or anyone else in that situation, not knowing Wikipedia had its own meaning for the word reliable, might be inclined to think otherwise,

Nine: I've read, and semi-understood, the legal threat page, but I honestly don't see as that it applies to this situation.

If my Mom, or my best friend (an imaginary elf who lives in a well !) had removed the airplane anecdote, I would have replied in much the same way, as follows : "Are you some over-protective adolescent fan unfamiliar with the law- to suggest that the airline story I added to the Janoskian page, as related by writer John Hodgman, is not reliable? I fear you may be putting yourself in jeopardy should Mr. Hodgman choose to bring legal proceedings." Clearly, no threat to them, but merely an honest observation as to how a stranger might react to being called unreliable in print. If you feel the need to boot me off, ok, but I can't see that I have anything to retract.

Ten: I will be off-line for a few days, so I will be unable to respond to anything save electric shocks.

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I am back on the internet and when I signed on to Wikipedia I saw I had two messages/updates (do I have the right name/term for this?) in this section, but I can't find them. Is there something new I'm missing? Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know where those other messages are. You can check the talk page history for posts here or click on the notification icon to the left of your account name to see where notices (including talk page messages) were left. More broadly, nothing happened. Your statement above about the legal threat merely being a friendly heads up is wrong on two accounts. First, it's completely ignorant of defamation law--there's no court in the US that would hear the merits of a case brought on because someone didn't cite the plaintiff as a source on wikipedia. Second, in plain language it's a statement that reads "someone could sue you if you edit the article in this way". The fact that the threat is so self-evidently baseless (because no one would or could for the edits under discussion) is why you're not blocked, not because it was just a neighborly reminder. I said this above but it bears repeating: we're all just volunteers here. We write or improve articles in our spare time and when we have a normal dispute over content it should be just that. No editor should get "the upper hand" in a content discussion by suggesting that deviating from their preferred version of the article would land a volunteer in legal trouble. No editor should be forced to retain legal help to check to see whether or not a "friendly reminder" made in the course of normal editing represents something that might get them in trouble. That's the plain meaning and purpose of our policy on legal threats. You can disagree with that or feel that it is overly restrictive but it's one which is pretty much set in stone and has been that way since the early days of the project. If, in the future, you find yourself tempted to leave another friendly reminder for editors, don't. It's neither friendly nor helpful and an admin who sees it will likely notice this discussion and conclude that you've been warned about this before. Should that happen they'll block you without further warning. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morrie Ryskind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal Crackers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC) ThanksCopyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lupino Lane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heinemann. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)THANKS SO MUCH WILL FIX[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922) has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922). Thanks! The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've been sick. Thanks. I'll look at it. Any help creating the article would be appreciated. The event was a rare stage collaboration by film stars who'd by that point in their careers had virtually abandoned live perfrormances.Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Hello again, I've read your comments. May have to be moved to a better title and requires copy editing for format, tone and style. Thanks. Would a better/acceptable title be The Actors Fund of America's 1922 Production of A Midsummer Night's Dream ? What should I change in "format, tone and style" for my next draft submission to be accepted? Any help appreciated. If I don't respond quickly, it is due to illness.[reply]

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922) (August 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out was:
Please address the issues noted in comment by last reviewer
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Flat Out (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , I've read the comments. May have to be moved to a better title and requires copy editing for format, tone and style. Thanks. Would a better/acceptable title be The Actors Fund of America's 1922 Production of A Midsummer Night's Dream ? What should I change in "format, tone and style" for my next draft submission to be accepted? Any help appreciated. If I don't respond quickly, it is due to illness.

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gale Henry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC) THANKS!Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

small tags in images

[edit]

Please do not add <small> tags in image captions. Captions are already small. Any smaller and they violate accessibility guidelines. You added double small tags to one that brought it down to 60% of normal and I could not read it without increasing text size. Also, please do not add ALL CAPS to image captions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. Sorry. I thought small captions looked better and I used CAPS because they were easier to read. I won't do it again. Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Dudley Murphy, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".
The edit is here.

exclamation mark  In addition, your edit summary there is inaccurate, as there is a big difference between "shifted image" and adding an info box, which is what you actually did. Please ensure your summary reflects what the edit actually does. 220 of Borg 03:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry.... thanksCopyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Pearce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Romano. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cecilia Parker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Healy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC) thanks so much just fixedCopyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922) concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Brackett, you may be blocked from editing. Quis separabit? 02:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922) (March 22)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was:
As same as Flat Out.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
333-blue 23:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Copyrights once lasted 56 years, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 333-blue 23:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Copyrights once lasted 56 years", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. 333-blue 23:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Hi

For me to answer or defend anything, you will have to tell me, please, specifically how you, or others, feel my account name, or username, violate ANY Wikipedia policy.

My username is a statement of fact - copyrights once lasted a maximum of 56 years. There is nothing inflammatory or inaccurate in such a statement so far as I can tell.

Does it represent the name of a company, group, organization, product or website? I THINK NOT. IF SO, WHICH?

Is my account shared by multiple people? NO... I DON'T THINK IT IS EVEN READ BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE

Does my user/account name serve as a soapbox, or means of promotion or advocacy? A STATEMENT OF FACT CAN DO NONE OF THOSE THINGS.

Am I contributing to Wikipedia in a biased manner? IF SO, PLEASE TELL ME WHY/HOW MY USER NAME WOULD INDICATE, OR ACCOMPLISH, THAT.

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922) has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922). Thanks! Flat Out (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ed McMahon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The Tonight Show, and 46 Years of Friendship'' (Berkley Publishing Group – Penguin Group), 2005)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Copyrights once lasted 56 years. 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]

Your draft article, Draft:A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America (Hollywood Bowl; 1922)

[edit]

Hello, Copyrights once lasted 56 years. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "A Midsummer Night's Dream-Actors' Fund of America".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 19:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Copyrights once lasted 56 years. 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]

A Dobos torte for you!

[edit]
LovelyLillith (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hi, I'm LovelyLillith. I noticed your tenure here has had a few bumps in the road, and I think you could use a little Wikilove for constructive efforts. Most editors mean well, hopefully you will encounter more that brighten your day. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Copyrights once lasted 56 years. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Copyrights once lasted 56 years. 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Copyrights_once_lasted_56_years&oldid=1083949541"