Hello, Sean mc sean, 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! Yamaguchi先生 07:49, 24 October 2006
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contibutions.
However, there is a problem with your edit in Grand Theft Auto (series), which involves the inclusion of a fictional city, dubbed "Capital City (Based on Washington D.C.)." Due to the fact that I have never heard of the city after playing the relevant games and reading the instruction manuals, I have undone your edits, citing a lack of evidence to back up Capital City's existence. You may like to consider providing a source or evidence on this claim; otherwise, this edit will be reverted again if it is included in the Grand Theft Auto (series) article.
That's the thing that I'm concerned about. Stuff written here that is sourced from word of mouth is not necessarily facts. Under this sort of circumstances, it would usually help to play GTA1 and GTA2, and research material of the games to actually verify Capital City's existence, so that actual evidence of the city can be provided in the article. I am, however, prepared to stand corrected if evidence of Capital City can be is found in these sources. Thanks for the response, though. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Referring to your recent and repeated edits to omit certain contents in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series (the original name of the Cubans and entire Avenging Angel section) without explanation, I am forced to revert these change again due to the lack of edit summaries. At least some communication is needed for others to understand what you have in mind and why you removed these edits.
Anyway, perhaps we can discuss this issue in the article's talk page for a resolution before any omissions can be made; think of it as an open attempt By the way, if you haven't notice, there is a history page of this article where both edit changes and edit justifications are provided; hence the need for edit summaries.
Thanks for clearing things up on who made which edit. However, the argument regarding the merit of non-gang-like gangs is a bit shallow. The VCPR gang mentioned for example, has absolutely nothing in common with gangs (neither the host, guest, nor the station itself is affiliated with anything about gangs, behavior), hence the lack of need (or logic) to mention them. The Golfers, Security Guards, Army and Avenging Angels all have relations to gang activities or gang characteristics.
By the way, I'm not responsible for the removal of the Vice City Triads/Counterfeit Syndicate, but it's pretty much appropriate to mention something about the Vice City-based Triads featured in the Print Works mission, since they were featured as a "gang." Feel free to put it back in and I'll see what can be done about it.
Thanks for uploading Image:WMXXundertaker.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
The page, as mentioned in a notice at the top of the article, has been fully protected due to disputes and edit wars, preventing any editing by anyone. Links have been provided on the article's notice to let you in on the nature and reasoning of the article protection. Thanks. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Only the Shoreside Vale district is both geographically and visually similar to the north eastern fringes of the New Jersey state (directly across the river from New York City); Staunton is clearly based on Manhattan, and Portland is based on eastern New York City boroughs (Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island). Although Shoreside Vale basically mimics suburban traits of New Jersey, it doesn't necessarily represent the entire New Jersey state as a whole. Shoreside Vale is also suggested to be located on the mainland, just like New Jersey; Staunton and Portland are islands, just like much of New York City. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶10:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Well, we won't really know how Rockstar modelled the city, but what is suggested is that Liberty City is suppose to represent the urban core of New York City and its surrounding areas. New Jersey should be included in the mix. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
The Flash version of the official GTA III website contains two icons in the Wichita Heights district of Shoreside Vale which refer to MSX FM and Game Radio. Secondly, both Los Santos and San Fierro are based on major Californian city (Los Angeles and San Francisco); Las Venturas is based on Las Vegas (a Nevadan city), in addition to the Sherman Dam, which is based on the Hoover Dam, partially located in Nevada. Hence the inclusion of California and Nevada as the states San Andreas is based upon.
On the subject of asking me a few GTA-specific questions, perhaps you would like to use a GTA forum or the likes instead for future inquiries on the games. I'm not free or prepared to answer questions that are not relevant to editing in Wikipedia. Thanks. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶10:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
I'm not the position of knowing the racial background of the Cholos gang, as I haven't play GTA:VCS. As stated in my last message, your questions are better reserved for game forums or forums related to the GTA series (i.e. GTAForums) that have members who are better prepared to discuss your views. Also, Wikipedia is generally not intended to be a fan forum. Thanks. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
The last post that you had provided doesn't indicate that it was concerning who is editing who (it would be appreciated if sufficient details are included when discussing in this talk page), and as such, left me to assume that the post is referring to casual discussions. Neither have I expected one to direct a message to the wrong user and leave the message uncorrected for almost a day.
On that note, have you looked into the history page of the article again? The page should locate specific editors who made specific edits accurately. You could also try additionally to bring up discussions on article changes in the article's talk page as well (although the likeliness of replies varies from topic to topic).
Btw, I've used GTAForums with few conflicts with other forum goers; it's expected to be a proper place to discuss GTA topics as long as one has proper etiquette. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
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, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Your recent edit to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each page has a history page (like this history page, for example), which contains every single revision made since the article's creation, created each time the article has been edited. In order to locate removed content, you have to backtrack to earlier revisions, and click the link that reads as the time and day that each new revision is created. After opening any previous revision, you can view the raw content of the article by selecting the "edit this page" tab (but you can't change previous reversions), and selecting any wanted contents to be amended at the current revision. In the case of the Triads section, you may need to search a few revisions before you can find it, because certain revisions may or may not contain the section (because it was removed or not at the time).
Help:Page history should provide detailed guides on how to use these pages. hope that helps. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Do you have a question or need help? Why not try Wikipedia:Questions as well? Users there are more prepared and happy to assist you in any problems or inquiries. Although asking users directly for help is not wrong, certain users may not be in the position answering questions. Thanks, and happy editing! ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
District names or minor locales are not necessary in the locations section or this article. Locations only referenced in speech once or twice are usually not notable enough to be included, while Bullworth and Carcer City, which are not featured in any GTA games, nevertheless are featured as the settings of non-GTA games set in GTA canon. In the case of the districts or neighborhoods, it's only repeating what would be provided in articles on respectable cities (such as the inclusion of "New Guernsey", which is only a neighborhood in Liberty City). This article is only intended to provide an overview of locales, and is to be keep at a minimal if possible (leaving out said info). I've included a similar message at Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Location's criteria for inclusion, in which we can discuss this more openly. Thanks. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
It hasn't been proven (yet) that it's in the GTA universe; it could very well be possible that Rockstar may not want to associate such a game like Bully with the violent GTA universe. Unless you can find a source proving otherwise, please stop adding to the article. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit me§Contributions ♣ 05:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that people can't assume that Claude is Claude Speed without any proof, just like you can't assume that Bullworth is in the GTA universe without proof. You can't add information based on what you think. You can only post information on what you can prove. Like I said, if you don't have proof, please stop adding it to the article. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit me§Contributions ♣ 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. 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. You may also 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! HagermanBot14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, calm down. Second, I always watch the GTA pages, so I found that "Bullworth" info totally on accident. Third, Napoleon Dynamite (the character) doesn't deserve its own article; he isn't noteworthy enough to have his own, regardless of how popular the movie is. The article about the movie details his character plenty. Also, not every main character in every popular movie deserves their own article. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit me§Contributions ♣ 03:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you improve it, it would either have unnecessary, and irrelevant, info, or it would completely mimic what was in the movie article that describes him. It doesn't need to stay. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit me§Contributions ♣ 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must agree -- please calm down, or you may be blocked from editing without any further warning. If you have a legitimate dispute with another editor, please make calm use of the dispute resolution process. Luna Santin05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for trolling and disruption for a period of 31 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Luna Santin06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated the article Napoleon Dynamite (Character) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Dynamite (Character). Add four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Napoleon Dynamite (Character) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit me§Contributions ♣ 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean mc sean; When making major edits, I wonder if you would be kind enough to leave the minor edit box unchecked and to leave an edit summary of your edit in the box below the main edit box?[1] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Carl "CJ" Johnson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Carl "CJ" Johnson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then why is "he" doing edits that only YOU have ever done? You're the main one who always changes the dates like that. Well, technically speaking, you aren't Sean800...anymore, since it got blocked. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for
a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}.
Look punk, don't be deleted that part of the article on the Cholos. In VCS, Phil Cassidy said they were Mexican gang bangers. Craxy22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from blanket reverts, especially when there is a consensus against the changes you wish to make, such as this reversion. Please also be mindful of the WP:Manual of Style, particularly the part about writing about fictional events using the present tense. Croctotheface11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reset your block, and extended it by one week, because of your block evasion and personal attacks using your IP. The block will expire three weeks from now, as will the protection. Note that any further sockpuppeting ventures to continue your blatant personal attacks will result in this account being indefinitely blocked. Daniel.Bryant06:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you really need anger management classes. Have you even had the foresight to establish to yourself exactly what tor is and why I recommended it to you? No. You have simply assumed that I am 'out to get you' without due regard for establishing the facts. In short, you'll get no more help out of me. Good day.
Evidently you don't have the foggiest idea of that to which I refer, as is telling to any casual passing reader. You do also realise that I am actually quite happy in my own life, and calling me abusive names doesn't really bother me. I do feel sort of sorry for you, because your edits make you seem like quite an unbalanced persona. Perhaps if you try to improve your own life, you will not feel the need to validate your own existence by swearing at strangers over the internet. Additionally, i herd u liek mudkips Cloveoil15:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LULZ. Sean mc Sean, please take heed. "This needs to stop now, before one of you gets blocked and before the other gets blocked even longer than a month". Ptpgta, I believe that you may find that the user in question is already blocked. Cloveoil01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry I need to get used to wikipedia... Ok Sean Mc Sean please do not vandlize the list of GTA gangs page like you did when you removed the PIGs article please stop or you may be blocked!... Again
Your recent edit to Michael Richards (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You're the last person who needs to tell someone how to act. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Klptyzm. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Madman bum and angel23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Dan Houser, 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.
I have only just got involved with what's going on, but from what I can tell, you really need to re-read the rules of Wikipedia. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, and you have been reported to WP:AIV. You do not fight fire with fire here. ≈ The Haunted Angel22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked You have been blocked for vandalism for one month. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I only vandalised Johnnyfog's page because he went and vandalised my page. I i get Blocked he should too.
Decline reason:
Unblock templates are to be used to request an unblock if you believe you were blocked unjustifiably. Please stop abusing it. — Yamla22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I couldn't help but noticed your comments, and accusations, that you directed at me: first off, I'm not an admin, and if I was, I can guarantee you that you would be blocked for much longer than a month, because I know you aren't going to change one bit. Second, I didn't revert every edit you made, just 91% of them, and all of those needed to be reverted. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 05:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If i am unblocked then i pormise i will be a better editor
Decline reason:
This is your fifth block since January. Your actions do not provide me any reason to believe you are serious when you say you would be a better editor if unblocked. I am really surprised you were only blocked for one month this time, the more usual course of action would be a six month block. Because of this, I suggest you accept the leniency that has been offered and take this time to consider whether you wish to contribute productively once the block expires next month. — Yamla00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is especially true given your blatant personal attacks made just a day ago. If there's even one more example of this, you will be blocked indefinitely. Please consider this your final warning. --Yamla00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Johnnyfog is a nice guy who has removed his personal attack]
unregistered number? OK I'M GETTING PISSED NOW *Hits Johnnyfog over the head with the Beretta, And points it back at Klptyzm's head*, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT OR KLPTYZM HEAD GETS BLOWN OFF. Sean mc Sean05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EVERYONE, STOP ALL THESE PERSONAL ATTACKS. All you are doing is just picking on a blocked user and all of you need to go back to editing instead of bullshittin' around one user. This is freakin' juvenile and needs to stop. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, this very situation is probably what would keep me from being an admin, and if I wanted to be an admin, I probably would have done so a long time ago. Just chill out and you be fine. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking to you Sean! Just ignore him like i'm doing now! He then will keep talking and threating and he will be blocked!--Manny Ribera15:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little kidd for telling you to ignore Klyptzm??? I'm helping you out... Anyway I have a important thing to tell you from Craxy! Do you have a Myspace? If you do tell me so I shall tell him...Put the link here ok? You should be fine don't worry about Klyptzm!--Manny Ribera15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Craxy wanted to talk to you? I also want to add you! I'm Manny Ribera and I don't think Craxy is Latino hes black!--Manny Ribera 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way don't vandlize my page! I believe hes black i'm no Craxy! I'm Manny Ribera a political prisoner from Puerto Rico!--Manny Ribera14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GTAIV_Lady.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan0009:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:RomanGTA IV.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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bellic Niko.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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GTA IV Guy.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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GTAIV Lady.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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Hove Beach.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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Tyler Redick, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Floyd (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
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! HagermanBot 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to The Happy Elf, you will be blocked. Bib 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on User talk:Klptyzm: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Wildnox(talk) 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:GTA IV Guy.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).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
