User talk:Themoodyblue

Welcome To My Talk Page ! Please Be Courteous And Say What You Want To Say.

Hi and welcome to my talk page. I'm glad you are here. Please be polite and realize that you don't have to be rude or mean or ban people or insult them to be better or smarter or to make your point. I am here to learn as much as I am to contribute, so anything constructive that you have to say would be a big help and really appreciated! Welcome to my page, and I hope that you enjoy it. Take it easy and remember that we are all in learning and discovery together as we continue our education each and every day. Learning is endless, and can be a wonderful adventure of discovery!|

Thank You,
The Moody Blue

Julia_Gillard

Julia Gillard will be sworn in as prime minister early this afternoon (AEST). She's currently leader of the Labor Party. Let's not call her PM yet. --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bana

Thanks for your addition to Eric Bana. To follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy, however, could you mention where this information comes from? Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sourcing from imdb.com to the article. Sorry, I forgot to add the reference when I originally added the information. Themoodyblue (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption offer

I understand that you are enthusiastic to contribute to the encyclopedia and I wish to offer the proposal of adoption (See WP:ADOPT for more info), wherby I will have the opportunity to mentor you along the way, as you learn about wikipedia, its policies and its guidelines. This is of course purely optional and you have no obligation to accept. --Flewis^(talk) 08:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, If you have been experiencing harassment or wikistalking from other editors, you should certainly let someone know, so that those cuasing you 'stress' will be dealt with in an appropriate manner. --Flewis^(talk) 08:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted!

Congratulations! - You're now officially adopted. Consider adding one of the following templates to your user-page: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adopter's Area/Resources. Remember, if you need any help, even with the most basic of queries, just send me a message on my talk page, and I'll reply ASAP. Also, remember to Sign your posts on talk pages using the button or using wiki markup such as ~~~~, which gives you: Flewis^(talk) 09:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jennet Conant

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jennet Conant, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If having 3 New York Times bestsellers is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I would REALLY like to know what is. Conant is a noted, published, best selling author. Please knock off the speedy deletion stuff - or redefine what is considered "notable". Themoodyblue (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhm please source the article to back up whats in the article the only source is her own website which is not good enough you need indy sources to back up the article to make it more clear of its notability and also please read wp:bio about the sources thanks if you added them the article will be fineOo7565 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a number of references to the article. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmation

Hmm, interesting. So you aren't able to move pages or edit semiprotected pages? According to WP:UAL#Autoconfirmed_users, autoconfirmation is done automatically by the software, so I really don't know why you wouldn't be able to do those things. Perhaps leaving a note at WT:UAL asking about it would be a good next step if it's still not working. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hortatory

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hortatory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Duplicates a Wiktionary article with no asserion of usefulness in Wikipedia.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Hortatory is an essential part of language and speech - ANY language and speech. If you delete the Hortatory, why not delete "verb" and "noun" as equally useless. Deleting this would be like deleting Greek from the Bible because people don't understand it or use it very often. It is still essential! ....Themoodyblue (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Themoodyblue. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My church

I was a member of the Evangelical Free Church of Canada until my congregation was forced to shut down last year due to declining attendance and other factors. Now I have joined the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, in a congregation whose building my EFCC congregation was renting in its last two years of existence. Although I do not consider myself a Pentecostal, I also believe maintaining established relationships is more important than fighting over an unclear interpretation of doctrine. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Khama-ian.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Khama-ian.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Brambo (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The problem is that the image currently has no source indication; if you could add it to the page, it would greatly help determine its license. Thanks! Brambo (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of maintenance tags

Please don't remove maintenance tags (as you did here) without providing a reason either in the edit summary or on the Talk: page. Thanks. 92.3.44.211 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If you're removing a tag because (for example) it's two years old and no longer applies, then state that in the edit summary. Thanks. 92.3.44.211 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Corll

You are most welcome. I have just spent a few hours searching archives and have managed to retrieve the names of a further two victims, and have just updated the article (although there is still one further identified to be named). I was intrigued by your message, and the one you left on the discussion page of this article. Any links you can find I will gladly view.

What has always struck me about this case is the unanswered questions which linger to this day which are in part due to the lack of a thorough investigation into the full extent of the crimes committed, before and after the discovery of Corll's crimes.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahut-Isner

Haha thanks. I don't think there's a standard for tennis match line scores (I just borrowed the formatting from an article about a baseball game), so if there's anything else you think belongs there, go nuts. Go Isner! U-S-A! Rowsdower45 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PM

She is not yet PM. ITN was wrong, and has taken it down. If you look at the actual top story article at The Australian rather than the banner and photo caption, it says, "Ms Gillard is to address the media conference shortly before she is sworn in as prime minister early this afternoon by Governor-General Quentin Bryce." She will be sworn in around 12:30 AEST (perhaps later thanks to Rudd's speech running long). -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that ITN and The Australian had both jumped the gun. My fault. Themoodyblue (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships

This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is pretty clear, and WP:DR and WP:3RR are even clearer. I haven't threatened you at all, I've warned you what the consequences would be if you carried on edit warring. And sorry, but you aren't special, these consequences are what anyone in your position would be facing if they were acting in the same way. Do not fall into the trap of thinking the warning has anything to do with the validity of your content, it does not. But on that issue, if you think your content is valid, it will be a trivial matter to show it has support then wouldn't it? I await to be convinced, but based on my experience in editing thousands of other articles, I remain strongly skeptical that you have a proper handle on what is and isn't appropriate in this situation. You comments about how this one massive quote summarises everybody else's opinions nicely is just out and out editorialising tbh, very concerning. But let's be crystal clear, I am not required to begin that discussion for you, not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lawford

Hi, Themoodyblue! Thank you for your recent good faith entry to the article - I reverted it only because it added a redundancy. In my edit summary, I mistakenly said it was mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph - what I meant was the first sentence of the section (and I was wrong about that too: it's the second sentence) "D'oh!" Anyhoo, "They had four children; actor Christopher Kennedy Lawford, and daughters Sydney Maleia Kennedy Lawford, Victoria Francis Lawford, and Robin Elizabeth Lawford." I hope you understand my revert, and all the best with your editing! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson

I apologize if you feel your edits are unwanted, or that your edits are being suppressed, but your edit itself included the phrase "and other 'gossip' sites". That notwithstanding, your edit did not actually include those sources; you merely referred to them (as opposed to linking to them, or specifically citing them). Please, if you feel that you have something to add to Mel Gibson, or any other article, be sure to properly source it. Chickenmonkey 04:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Las Vegas TV edits

Really? You think that removing the one line sentences about a few characters from the "Background" section now makes the article entirely useless? There's a whole freakin "Cast And Characters" section immediately below it that is more useful and fleshed out than what I removed from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Daniel Kear

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Daniel Kear, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030710_covey.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Daniel Kear and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Daniel Kear, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Daniel Kear with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Daniel Kear. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Daniel Kear saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Thorndale Jam.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Thorndale Jam.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Minnesota Twins

Hi. Just as a note, regarding one of your recent edits to Minnesota Twins: if you have several items that can all be sourced to the same reference, you should name the reference (the code looks like <ref name="ReferenceName">citation text here</ref>), and then use the repeated name for multiple iterations of the same source (code as follows: <ref name="ReferenceName"/>). It would also be appreciated if you didn't refer to {{cn}} tags as an "epidemic" in your edit summary, because those elements of this article did really need to be sourced. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page. Thank you for your contributions! — KV5 • Talk • 20:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Killervogel5!

Hey mate, thanks for the note. I will repair the references that you mentioned when I get a chance (have a new job as a consultant to a newly elected government and I think I have terminal jet lag (is that possible? (-: ) I have to disagree with you though about the "citation needed" tag issue. The way they are being used are making some articles absolutely unreadable. Many are used to undermine ideas that someone doesn't like but can't challenge directly, and others seem to feel that every verb, conjunction and definite article needs some sort of documentation. The "citation needed" tags are being abused by some people who have no idea why they are there or what the appropriate use of them is.
However, I am also not exactly sure how to address the issue - I completely agree that statements of substance need documentation, but not every sentence in every article does. I have noticed that a few people (and in looking it seems to be the same few sometimes) tend to also use the who? what? when? where? and why? tags (pardon the attempt at a funny there) to undermine ideas and statements that they disagree with. If something actually needs a citation I leave it alone, but it just seems many times that where and how the "citation needed" is used is trivial and meaningless.
I would appreciate any ideas that you have that we could suggest to streamline the whole "citation needed" and "who? what? when? where? and why?" problems so that they are used when needed and appropriate while also keeping the articles readable and also keeping some people from making a statement about the articles veracity without having to provide any documentation of their own. In a very real way, putting a "citation needed" tag where it is not really appropriate makes the casual reader question the entire truthfulness of a statement that may not need any documentation at all. Any ideas on streamlining this? One though I had is to come up with a central tag, like the "{bias}" tag, that alerts the reader that there might be sourcing problems without them having to read "citation needed" every fifth word. As I said, I am not quite sure how to address the problem, but it is a problem that needs to be discussed.
I will get the references with the Minnesota Twins updated when I get some free time (probably on my next flight back to Sydney - it is only a 18 hour flight (ugh!).) Thanks for the note - take care. And please let me know if you have any thoughts towards fixing the "citation needed" issue.

Have a good weekend! The Moody Blue 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your feelings on the citation templates. I'm not saying that there's no problem with their usage; there may very well be. My concern was with airing your grievances with the process in an edit summary. There are certainly more appropriate forums for discussing that; you could open an RfC on it if you'd like wider community input. That said, thanks for agreeing to fix those, and happy editing! — KV5 • Talk • 20:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - sorry it took so long to get back to you. Just got back to the States yesterday. Take care! The Moody Blue 17:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The Sopranos, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett Shale

Hi, Themoodyblue. Thank you for your addition to the Shale oil extraction. Unfortunately there is a lot of confusing concerning terms 'shale' and 'oil shale'. Barnett Shale is not oil shale. It has a great potential for shale gas (which is not related to oil shale) production, but this is different from oil shale. Therefore I reverted your edits. However, once more, thank you for your contribution. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table tennis WikiProject coordination

Cialo (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Themoodyblue. I noticed you have recently contributed to the table tennis page. Let me know if you are interested in collaborating on other pages of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Table tennis.

Cialo (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to involve you in the project. I guess you are from the US, indeed we need a responsible for North America area. In particular, we currently have the pages for the Latin American Table Tennis Union and for the Latin American Table Tennis Championships. The next step is to do the same for the North America. Do you think you can help in creating these pages ? You could use the Latin America related page as a model... In particular we would need:

A page for the North American Table Tennis Union
A page for the North American Table Tennis Championships

You could find all the required information on the ITTF website and on its statistics section http://www.ittf.com/ittf_stats/. When the two aforementioned pages are created and filled up a new page for eachwinning player could be added, at a first stage a stub page is enough (e.g., Ruth Aarons)

An other important point is to improve the table tennis main article following the indications provided by the reviewers in Talk:Table tennis. Let me know how do you prefere to collaborate. In the mean time I have included your name in the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Table tennis.

License tagging for File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Müller (Gestapo)

Hi, I'm sorry but I had to revert your edit about the Wannsee Conference on Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) due to some problems, primarily with the coding. I would suggest re-adding the content that you had to the bottom of the infobox on Mueller's page, much like you did for some of the other Wannsee attendees.Hoops gza (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it and someone removed the tag. The photo was taken before 1930 and is therefore exempt from copyright restrictions as being in the historical public domain. Someone removed the tag and probably will again, but I will fix it once more. The Moody Blue 16:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Mike Milbury

Dear Themoodyblue, I'm afraid there has been a miscommunication between us. On December 16 2011, I made a three word grammatical correction to the Mike Milbury page. You removed it and then sent me a brief message, warning not to make biased, irresponsible contributions to Wikipedia. Below, I have provided evidence that I added no additional opinionated commentary to the stated article.

Compared revision between my edit on Dec 16 2011 and the previous version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Milbury&action=historysubmit&diff=466229697&oldid=466215463

Image cap of the same (mirror):

http://i.imgur.com/y9ztk.jpg

I apologize if this is an inappropriate use of the talk page, but I could find no other way to relay this information to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.58.152 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of This Is A Recording (David Persons Album)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on This Is A Recording (David Persons Album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. 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 music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- WikHead (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Themoodyblue. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Graduate school, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Sopranos. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AV3000 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page Martina Navratilova appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arpaio information IS correct - please revert my edit back immediately

[The following is pasted from my talk page S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)] My information IS correct. County law enforcement officers are deputized by an elected sheriff and are legally "deputies", NOT "officers". Look up Arizona county mandate laws. Also, look up the Stoddard appeal case, and you will see that they specifically mention Arpaio's claim about court authority. Please revert my changes until you are able to provide documentation that they are in fact incorrect. The Moody Blue (Talk) 18:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. You are correct about deputies, but that is not the problem. The info you put in is not supported by the article cited. Come on, you know better.--S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added with my paste of the above: Thank you for providing additional references about the Stoddard incident. As indicated by your subsequent edits, the original editing problem was with the additional info not supported by the news article. Also, you are correct about the designation of deputy. (But please note his job title was "Detention Officer".)--S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got testy, but I have had a bad experience with some other folks on here about editing. Shouldn't have taken it out on you. I appreciate your courtesy - hopefully I have it referenced correctly now. Thanks, and have a good weekend! The Moody Blue (Talk) 20:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 has given you a LOL ipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I always (almost always) keep the wisdom of Viktor Frankl in mind.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

--S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lollipop! I needed one today. I will be sure to pass it on. The Moody Blue (Talk) 01:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Lilibet and Philip romance

The original and most reliable source for Lilibet's initial response to Philip was her nanny, Marion "Crawfie" Crawford, whose comment on the topic in her book, "Little Princesses" suggests that the young cousins had taken no prior note of one another, regardless of any official ceremonies they may both have been present at previously. When I posted in the Charles, Prince of Wales article that this first meeting on 22 July 1939 -- when she was 13 and he was 18 -- was arranged by Lord Mountbatten who arranged and accompanied the King and Queen on their visit to Dartmouth that day, I was told pretty much the same thing you were, here. Yet I don't consider the Vanity Fair quote sufficient to establish the couple's prior acquaintance: of course they were both present at the 1934 wedding and 1937 coronation -- but so were hundreds of other relatives and courtiers, and the age gap at those dates would have been likely to minimise their interaction. Have you seen or read anything which states that they had actually been introduced to one another earlier than when Crawford describes their encounter? FactStraight (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Holmes (pornographic actor)

Please do not remove maintenance templates without addressing the problem the template is calling attention to or providing an edit summary that includes a valid reason for the removal. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance template removed from Secondhand Lions

You removed the "Plot" maintenance template from this article, but you didn't do anything to address overly long plot summary that impelled someone to put it there in the first place. Making matters worse, you didn't explain your edits in an Edit Summary (or on the Talk page). I put it back.

Your citation, "via IMDB locations list", is not very specific, either, but I left it. I don't think it's up to WP:MOS style, though. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb should not be used as a reference in most cases, as it is not considered a reliable source. WP:RS/IMDb. Doniago (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of prime ministers defeated by votes of no confidence

Just to let you know, I undid some of your edits to List of prime ministers defeated by votes of no confidence, due to the fact that only 2 U.S. Presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and that Richard Nixon was never impeached. Thanks, Cheers Mate.King of Nothing (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Del Amo Fashion Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackie Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenny Montana, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Senior, Members and Enforcer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Apache Pass Amphitheater

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Apache Pass Amphitheater, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.utsilverspurs.com/cde.cfm?event=345669 and http://www.apachepass.com/history.html. As a copyright violation, Apache Pass Amphitheater appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Apache Pass Amphitheater has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Apache Pass Amphitheater and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Apache Pass Amphitheater with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Apache Pass Amphitheater.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entire text in my own words. If there is a problem with the UT picture, fine, but the other pictures are originial product, as is the entire article. I wrote it myself and did not take any text from anywhere. PLease restore the article immediately without the offending picture if necessary, but put the rest of it back up as I wrote the text. With the exception of the Spurs picture, there are no copyright problems. Please fix it immediately. The Moody Blue (Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation shows it was a word-for-word copy from an online source. I have replied to your duplicate request on my talk page at User talk:CactusWriter#Apache Pass Amphitheater. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Themoodyblue. You have new messages at CactusWriter's talk page.
Message added — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Defensive conversion safety

I think we need to talk about this on the talk page. I think your additions might not be correct and I've started a discussion over there. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--What exactly is incorrect? I looked it up in the NCAA records and statistics book and the UT - A&M game and the Fiesta Bowl are both correct and are the only ones on record in division one. Do some research before you pronounce something wrong - just because you don't know it doesn't mean it isn't correct. Do you think I pulled the Nov 2004 date out of my ear? The Moody Blue (Talk) 04:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Rush (WHEC-723), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alameda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Marshals Service, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages True Grit and Rooster Cogburn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to the article List of United States Coast Guard people about SA William Flores. It made a perfect Memorial Day tribute for a fellow Coast Guardsman that gave his life in service to our country. I was not aware of SA Flores role in the sinking of the Blackthorn and to gain that knowledge makes me a better informed person about the Coast Guard. Again, thank you so much. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Redirect arrow.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Redirect arrow.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos, "Kennedy and Heidi"

Hello, you have edited the "Kennedy and Heidi" article and have added a piece of info regarding Kelli Moltisanti-Jackie Kennedy reference to its "plot" section. To avoid an edit war, we should discuss the addition.

The bit of info regarding Tony making a comparison between Kelli Moltisanti and Jackie Kennedy, I believe, is too trivial to include in the plot summary. The cultural reference should just be, and already is, mentioned in its appropriate section below.
The sources you have provided to support the addition are:
- First of all, unreliable and inadmissible (two of them) as they are mere blog posts of private individuals. The only acceptable sources to truly support a plot detail would have to come from someone affiliated with the show (preferably writers), that is from them directly or cited/reported by reliable third parties.
- Your refs only mention the Jackie Kennedy reference but not the favorable reaction of Tony, a claim which you would want to support. None of the sources touch that at all. I therefore removed them.
Now, whether or not Tony exactly likened Kelli to Jackie favorably or not is a rather difficult thing to decipher, I'd say. As I can remember, it was left pretty vague and ambiguous in the episode, all Tony said was, "Oh, Jackie Kennedy," and the camera cut to a quick shot of Kelli and that's it. Seeing any much into it either way, I think, would be largely an interpretation. Tony's overall conduct at the funeral scenes was of disgust of the mourners though, therefore just leaving the sentence "Tony is noticeably disgusted by the ostentatious display of everyone's sorrow." in the plot section should be enough, I believe.

What do you say? TheBearPaw (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 26 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sidney Myer Music Bowl page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protocol style for mayors

Sorry, my edit summary was unclear. I meant to say that we don't typically include honorifics before the name of politicians at other levels in the opening sentence of the lead, so it is unusual to change the style for mayors. It isn't even done for the British monarchs. It seems like something that might warrant discussion at WT:CANADA or the like. Cheers! Reso lute 01:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Kluwe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Los Alamitos. 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) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Mennonite. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alois Brunner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum. 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) 09:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted sources

Examiner.com is currently blacklisted and can not be used as a citation on Wikipedia. Please do not try to avoid the blacklist by using creative variations of the URL. If you can source the content without citing Examiner.com, you could try that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beverly Crusher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maurice Hurley. 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) 09:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkers and references

For your information, the $12,500 figure was sourced. A source at the end of a paragraph covers the whole paragraph. I also do not believe it always necessary to have inflation templates. Comparisons between eras are very chancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Correia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sid Smith. 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) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Correia

Your article Don Correia contains unreferenced content about a living person but you have not supplied in-line citations to support those statements. It has to be deleted. I am going to save this article to one of my own user pages so that all your hard work doesn't go to waste. This will give you time to 'fix' the article with good references so it can be re-submitted. I am sorry that it has to be deleted for now but I sure we can fix it to meet the guidelines. Your article is saved on this page: User Bfpage:biography. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 11:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Don Correia

Hello, Themoodyblue. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Don Correia, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Don Correia to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Bfpage |leave a message 11:30, 11 July 2015 (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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Thorndale Jam.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Thorndale Jam.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kelly ^hi! 15:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkpoint Charlie

Your 15 Feb 2016 revision to Checkpoint Charlie states that "Gotcha!" was filmed on both sides of the Berlin Wall. Do you have another reference for this than the one given?

The given IMDb reference, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089222/locations , cites three West Berlin filming locations, as does the credits in the movie. And no East Berlin filming locatons. Which would have been next to impossible in 1985. I think you'll find that the so-called East Berlin footage was actually filmed in Kreuzberg.

Regards, Bob Brewer Bob (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Themoodyblue. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Themoodyblue. 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]

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_20s8P6o8w8yhk33&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Kilgallen

I appreciate your August 1st edit to Dorothy Kilgallen's article. Nobody has reverted it as of two weeks later. You corrected the cause of death as it appears in the "Infobox" of the article. The main part of the article uses different words for the cause of her death. I was hoping to insert the very important words "circumstances undetermined" there. When I tried, my edit was reverted. You have many more edits to your credit than I do. I notice activity in your account that goes back to 2010. When you get a chance, can you please edit the main part of Kilgallen's article so the words match the Infobox exactly? There is no hurry. Thanks for your attention.Myra or someone (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ebyabe (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Themoodyblue. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited To Live and Die in L.A. (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The French Connection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Day of the Jackal (film) into Tulle. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg

The file File:Doc Scurlock, 1877.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias tag

Regarding your recent tagging of Photography Is Not a Crime with the {{bias}} tag, I don't have a problem with tagging the article per se. However, you didn't open any discussion on the talk page and worse, there's not even an edit summary. No one coming along to fix the article will have any clue as to what is biased, or which direction the bias sways. Please add some discussion to the TP so other editors know what benchmark to work towards. Thanks. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Your recent editing history at First Amendment audits shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever is reverting MY work keeps doing so - they edited my documented referenced additions and changes - talk to the edit stalker who keeps changing my edits to elicit their biased narrative in the entry. The Moody Blue (Talk) 01:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you read WP:ONUS, WP:SYNTH, self-revert, and seek consensus on the talk page. You have been reverted by multiple editors, so your additions clearly do not have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors do not a consensus make - this is why Wikipedia is considered a biased mess in most academic circles. The Moody Blue (Talk) 15:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is no consensus for inclusion. Consensus works both ways. WP:DR covers the methods of dispute resolution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature fix needed

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (Do not click the red "Restore all default settings" button, which will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Click the Learn more button next to the error to learn how to fix the error.
Update your signature to fix the error.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Solution 3: Do nothing:

In accordance with a recent request for comment, all invalid signatures will be changed to the default, which looks like "Example (talk)", one month from now.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]