User talk:Light Bulb

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Shannernanner 08:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Summarized my editing best I knew how to. Was it processed?

I'm not sure what you mean. Please see the link provided for information on edit summaries. Thanks. Shannernanner 15:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! (and how!)

Welcome!

Hello, Light Bulb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Thanks so much for editing the articles you have edited so far. I especially appreciate the additions to Lupe Ontiveros, because I had to remove paragraphs and paragraphs of plagiarized stuff a while back, meaning this terrific actress has next to no article. I've got a huge text file of material I pulled together with the intention of making her a decent article; if ever you're interested, there might be some way for me to send it along to you. Thanks again for your work — hope you'll find Wikipedia editing as interesting as I do. Lawikitejana 08:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and all the links. Everyone here has been so helpful and I really appreciate it. I was really looking forward to editing, adding content on existing articles and possibly creating entirely new ones but apparently my IP address has been used by a vandal and now as far as I know I can't contribute. (Light Bulb 05:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.117.8 lifted.

Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 06:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 205.188.116.130 lifted. Sorry for the trouble!

Request handled by: Luna Santin 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.116.204 lifted.

Request handled by: WinHunter ^(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock Issues

Why am I constantly being autoblocked? I understand it's related to my IP address but I wonder if this is as common for others as it is for me. Is there something I can do to prevent this from recurring or did I fail to do something when registering my information that has led to this predicament? Please help. (Light Bulb 01:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your edit to Robert Byrd

I wanted to give you the courtesy of telling you why I reverted your edit to the above article. As you can imagine, the article on the senator can be at times contentious between those that bend over backwards to apologize for his past sins and those that feign an interest in African Americans in order to criticize him (note: I don't believe that you fit either category, btw). I have been one of the editors that could give a crap either way about Byrd and his pros and cons and have worked hard to keep a careful balance that is true to history but also satisfies WP:BLP (something that is non-negotiable). In the past, others have raised the same point, but it was decided that evidence would have to be given that he opposed both nominations because they were black. Otherwise, it would be like saying "he opposed both nominees and they both happened to be left-handed/like Mozart or something. There is a pretty good case that his opposition to Marshall was out of racism, but I know of no one on the left or right that seriously believes the same was true with Thomas. Even so, those motivations would still have to be sourced by a verifiable, respected outside source to be included, otherwise it would count as speculation and thus flunk WP:OR. That being said, you have made some great edits and I hope you keep up the good work. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good catch on the Helms article. Those are exactly the kind of statements that would need sources and i have removed them, pending someone adding a citation. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already answered your question. Check out the above links regarding WP:BLP and WP:OR. The above message covers it. Make sure to check your talk page often around here, its how users communicate with each other. Keep up the good work and cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Byrd

I worked it into the main article with enough context where lefties couldn't apologize their way out of his vote against Marshall and righties couldn't make passive implications about his opposition to Thomas. Also, Wikipedia is now in a phase where we are trying to put trivia sections "out to pasture," so to speak, and work them into the main article text. Anyhow, keep up the good work and let me know if you need any help. I can steer you to links on Wikipedia policy/guidelines that are great reads. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of MODE magazine

A tag has been placed on MODE magazine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ronbo76 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters

You know there is a thing as to many quotesGang14 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anytime Gang14 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek and advertising

I removed the mention because we do not normally give weight to the appearance of a celebrity in a television commercial. This is essentially undue weight to a very minimal appearance. Please do not return this content. We really make an effort to avoid this sort of content. Add to that fact that the sources are less than reliable. Appearing on a book cover is of the same ilk. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2010 (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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]