Hello, Milk-maid, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Platypus Man | Talk14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pederasty, 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. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "good" articles by any definition, the whole assumption they are based on is false.
With "Pederasty", the word means exactly the same as pedophilia (with the vague "usually boys" used to differentiate it), and the article does nothing more than to provide a historical justification for pedophilia in the modern day and is heavily biased.
There is no reason to have 2 different articles, the issue is exactly the same, and any material actually deemed worthwhile should be placed in a subsection of pedophilia named "History of pedophilia" or alike. --Milk-maid12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are very well referenced, and such provide a distinction from the articles you are redirecting them to. If you have a issue bring it up on the talk page of those articles. Until a consensus is made, all three articles remain.
"Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."
"Until a consensus is made all three articles remain" - You mean YOUR "consensus", I don't see anyone else agreeing with you... --Milk-maid12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I echo what Jeeny and DeadEyeArrow have already said. Continue editing in this fashion is not likely to achieve anything but a block for you. I have all three articles on my watchlist, as do many others, and you will be reverted until such time as you discuss this on the talk pages and achieve community consensus. Cheers. Jeffpw13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your sincerely held opinions I should comment that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia contains articles on subjects that many different people (for many different reasons) find objectionable, but the criteria for inclusion only considers if the content is verifiable and properly sourced. The other principle behind editing Wikipedia is that of consensus, the considered result of the input of two or more editors. While editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD in editing it is noted that any revision of a bold edit is an invitation to discuss the contribution (per Bold - Revert - Discuss). Your input on the talkpages of the various articles will be most welcome. LessHeard vanU21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are well-referenced and editors have reached consensus on their content and form. Because consensus has already been reached, it is up to you to prove you have consensus to change the content – not the other way around. Unilateral moves and undiscussed edits, especially to make a point about pornography, will achieve nothing, and you will be reverted. Arguing about who made a minor edit and who didn't is a red herring and does nothing to support your position.
You have been warned, so consider this your final warning: If you revert any of these articles again within the next 24 hours, or if you make similar edits to other articles, you will be blocked for disruption. Pleas use the articles' talk pages to discuss your concerns and work with others to improve the encyclopedia instead of making tendentious edits. - KrakatoaKatie14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:HP_sauce.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen100:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HP sauce.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HP sauce.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I have pointed out several times it is not a "joke", try actually reading the article Living With Michael Jackson which mentions Timberlake specifically - and try not to be such a reactionary muppet who obviously reverts without actually researching first --Milk-maid15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Living With Michael Jackson article is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V without citing that information with a reliable source. Also, wikipedia articles aren't to be used as sources in other wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. If you continue to re-insert this information, you will be blocked for violating Wikipedia's core policies on biographies of living people and verifiability. Thank you. Bmg916Speak19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT in violation of anything, the source is the television programme (Living With Michael Jackson yep) in which Timberlake is clearly mentioned... If you cannot be bothered to do some research don't attack the people who have done please. If it gets you uptight that "I am referencing another Wikipedia article" fine, I have now added it instead with a proper cite. --Milk-maid02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack you, and yes it was in violation of WP:BLP. IMDB is not verifiable as it doesn't mention anything about the Timberlake accusation. Also, someone saying it's in the video isn't verifiable either. If you can show the exact clip from somewhere that isn't infringing on the copyright of the video, then it can be verified and included. Bmg916Speak19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that is not true, I have seen plenty of references to books and no copies of the text that is being cited. The same would logically apply to documentaries or films, it's ridiculous to ask people to link-cite material that is copyrighted on the internet... --Milk-maid09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked for a period of 31 hours since you have been editing disruptively ignoring the many notes and warnings above for more than a month now. Please try to communicate and discuss your edits w/ other editors when you are back. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore them, I replied to him in edit summaries (he did not even bring up a talk page section like he claimed, he lied)
He spammed my talk page to try make things appear worse than they actually were.
Thanks for uploading File:HP sauce.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pederasty, 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. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
