User talk:Darkohead

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Tiramisoo (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome

Hello, Darkohead, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short twentieth century ‎

Hi -- this really needs citing, and it would be great if you can give at least one citation. I deleted the bit about 1992, see my edit summary -- in fact, that read as though it was your own personal opinion. Was it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive My Soul

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Asian Century. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Chevy Impala 2009 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to World citizen, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. TeaDrinker (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Hi, I notice that you and the user Count Iblis have been edit warring on the Global warming article. I invite you to discuss the edits on the talk page, talk:global warming. --TS 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Third Pole

The article Third Pole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

the nickname doesn't warrant an article, could be added the mt. and plateau articles

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Category:World cities

A tag has been placed on Category:World cities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu edits

Since I removed all your edits which you just put back, I'll explain to avoid a public edit conflict:

The removal of your edits had nothing to do with censorship. There were too many that were not useful and it was more logical to just revert to the last version before you started. The way you did the edits made it too time consuming to try to fix them one by one. Here are a few examples:

1. You added cite tags in a few places, but the citations are both in the article, so it was clear that you didn't take to time to read much more than the lead. As you may or may not know, the guidelines say to keep cites off the lead when the details and sources are already in the body, except where the facts are likely to be controversial. The lead is just a summary of all the material in the article.

2. You added the Obama visit in such a way as to imply linkage. There may in fact have been such a link, but you can't just throw that in because you personally assume it. In any case, mention of his visit would have to be cited in the article, and any linkage suspicion would need a source besides your own phrasing.

3. Writing "around the planet" sounds strange and unprofessional. This is not an astronomy article.

4. Your Borderfirereport source is a blog, as you know, and the authors are writing mostly opinions and commentary. So to use that as your source for something relating to martial law makes it appear thay you are trying to push some personal fear agenda. If you want to go outside the MSM you need to be careful because your sources will be your badge to other editors. Adding categories for "political controversies" should be explained in the summary as to what you're referring to.

I see two options to fix the above: a) You fix them; b) Someone else will fix them one at a time, instead of the entire change, so that each and every revert is explained and justified to other editors. The negative to that option is that it will look like you added a continual string of weak contributions. Your choice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

Hi. Your account appears to be making lots of unconstructive edits. Wikipedia is not for ideological struggle. Adding false information or hoaxes, such as your edit to 2009 flu pandemic suggesting that the UN can suspend US sovereignty,[1] can be viewed as vandalism. Please stick to verified facts and avoid personal opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Speedy deletion nomination of Skate4Cancer

A tag has been placed on Skate4Cancer 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 organizations and companies.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Darkohead! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 217 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Breanne Duren - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Radio Head (Talking Heads song)

A tag has been placed on Radio Head (Talking Heads song) 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 a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to True Stories (album). --TS 20:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Swimming with Dolphins for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swimming with Dolphins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming with Dolphins until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Breanne Düren for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Breanne Düren is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breanne Düren until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adam Young for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Young is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Young until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]