User talk:TigerManXL

License tagging for Image:JohnVogel4Life.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnVogel4Life.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Vogel24.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vogel24.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

John Vogel

Whoops! After I looked at the page, I didn't see any vandalism, but when I saw you calling a person a 'Mortal Kombat character' I thought you must be the vandal. I have to say that I do not see any vandalism and, in fact, perfer the other version. What do you disagree with? It seems to be clearer. Prodego ^talk 00:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit, you may want to read WP:OWN. This other user's edits seem to be positive, making the article clearer, and there is no reason to believe the IPs are related. Removing the image could be seen as vandalism, but the page had two pictures in it already, and it does look a little crowded. Technicly, niether the Reiko image nor the Cage image should be on the page, because they are both Fair use images. Prodego ^talk 00:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with an edit (s)he makes, just contact him/her (without reverting) on either his/her user talk page or on the article talk page. I am sure that (s)he will be willing discuss the changes, and modify then as you two agree. Good luck. Prodego ^talk 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting. If you continue, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Discuss changes you disagree with, don't undo them without discussion. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He/she did discuss the changes there and you blanked that discussion. I suggest using L T Dangerous's version, I think it is easier to read and looks better. What is it you dislike about it. Prodego ^talk 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good. (P.S., I just checked, L. T. is a he). Prodego ^talk 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Concerning your edits to John Vogel, it would be much more productive if you used the preview button when editing pages as extensively as you are - you are filling the edit history with dozens of edits that make the history unreadable and makes it difficult to compare your edits to other versions. Also, edit summaries would be much appreciated as well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for thirty minutes for restoring copyvio images on John Vogel - please stop re-adding those images, and once again I must plead with you to use the preview button. Your edits have made the edit history unreadable at this point so that it is very difficult to compare different versions of the articles. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to John Vogel. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You don't own the John Vogel article. Do not remove the {{sources}} flag from the article until you have addressed the problems the article has (as you have done before [1]), and do not blank out the comments of others (as you have also done [2]), especially if they are in disagreement with you; it makes it very hard for other editors to assume good faith about your edits.

You have a trouble history of Wikipedia editing, and if you continue making such single-minded edits, you will likely be banned again. Assuming you don't want that to happen, I would recommend you alter your behavior. EVula 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing other editor's talk page comments

Do not change other editor's comments to talk pages, as you did to Talk:John Vogel here. Such edits are vandalism, and if you continue, you will be blocked. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Vogel

Hi. I noticed your commnent on the AFD debate for the John Vogel article.

On the one hand, you'll no doubt be pleased to learn that the article was kept; in fact, we decided that the article was nominated in bad faith, and the user in question (a repeat vandal) has been blocked indefinitely.

On the other hand, your statement "This is my article and you have no right to delete it" is inaccurate; I would like to suggest that you read WP:OWN, which is official Wikipedia policy.

You do not own the article. Wikipedia owns the article. You created the article, yes, and that's very good, but it's not yours in that sense.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. DS 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Vogel

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the person who nominated it for deletion did so because he was being a jerk. I read through his list of contributions, and just about everything he did was vandalism (even falsely adding "protected" tags to articles, to deter people from fixing them!). The one thing he did that wasn't vandalism was adding a "needs sources" tag to an article about Mortal Kombat... and, given what you've just told me, I'm going to check to see if he's the one who removed the sources in the first place.

So he's blocked, and if he shows up again with a new account, that one will be blocked too, and so on.

As for a way to deter vandals... um. That'd be really nice. Short of chopping off their hands, well, put the article on your watchlist, and whenever it gets vandalized, just revert it. If it gets vandalized a LOT, you can request that an administrator protect it and/or block the idiots responsible. DS 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Geraldo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Geraldo.png. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Geraldo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Geraldo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Geraldo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Geraldo.png. 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. BetacommandBot 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vogel2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vogel2.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 non-free media 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. Rette tast 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test Page

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Skipper Mullins worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on L Block, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It is a duplicate of the Tetris article

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of L-BIock

A tag has been placed on L-BIock, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w 06:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L-Block

January 2008

Thank you for experimenting with the page Deaths in 2008 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. tomasz. 07:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Deaths in 2008, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. tomasz. 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Johnvogel9mu2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnvogel9mu2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to United States presidential election, 2008 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. Gravel dropped out, actually.

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. 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! --SineBot (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your question

You asked for protection "until edit war is over." I happened to protect the version you feel to be the wrong one. This will occur every time a page is protected, with at least one user saying that the other version is the right one. I cannot take any sides, thus I cannot go and change to a different version while it is protected. I would recommend stating your side on the talk page, and if no one replies after a little bit than add {{editprotected}} to the talk page, with your reasoning behind the needed edit and another admin will review it and will make the edit if they feel it is needed. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate what I said on the article talk page, comment on the content, not the contributor. What you said was very rude and close to a personal attack. You need to provide a reliable source that states your opinion. Something that everyone can verify and comes from a respectable news outlet. Just step away from the situation for a while and try and find a reliable source that says what you are saying. You are doing nothing but inflaming the situation. Also please sign your posts using ~~~~. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gravel

He has not withdrawn, as has been pointed out to you by numerous editors on the article's tal page. You have also repeatedly been asked not to make this edit without adding a source. Do so again - and I add in advance that the out of date sources you provided on the talk page are not sufficient - and I will block you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Continuous addition of unsourced material after multiple warnings and edit warring. 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 adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TigerManXL, your block goes for three days. If after this time you create anymore disruption, break WP:3RR, make a personal attack, or break any other blockable policy you will have your block extended to indefinite. Please try to make productive edits and avoid confrontations with other editors when you get back. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Vandalism destroyer (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Superflewis (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Superflewis (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Castle Wolfenstein. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]