User talk:Vitashaomi

why can't the antony and the johnsons portion of the page be updated? there is info for Antony and the johnsons already in Antony Hegarty's page, it makes no sense to stop at 2009, there is pertinent information to be added for 2010 and 2011

The page is specif to Antony Hegarty, so only crucial factual info should be added. When pages overlap in this way over several separate articles copying the same detail from one to the other is not recommended.

Also, I note that you uploaded photos of Antony and the Johnsons. You claim to own these photos. Is this correct, or do you have permission to use them (in which case I will updated the file page correctly). Vitashaomi (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Iver (Album)

Thanks for not shouting, Vitashaomi. Even expert editors like Snoop God are obliged to provide sources. I'll give Snoop God 24 hrs, that should give him enough time. If by that time he won't be able to show me (and everyone else) a reliable source, his edit will have to be removed. There really is no other way. I provided a source, Snoop God didn't. "Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi" does not apply. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Iver (album)

Well, your suggested name, Bon Iver' by Bon Iver was not even mentioned in the move discussion. Given that, I don't see how you can say, after the move, that this is the correct name from that discussion. That should have been brought up in the discussion. If you believe that is the correct name, feel free to open another discussion. Based on the discussion, there was a clear consensus that the previous title was not correct. So based on that and what was said, where it was moved makes the most sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a problem reading, dear. The album is entitled 'Bon Iver' by the artist Bon Iver= a self titled album!

The interesting? angle is that they use Bon Iver, Bon Iver as an image, which confuses all the kids, and you also. Vitashaomi (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bon Iver. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop edit warring with Tamajared Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find I used the talk page twice in the last 24 hours - and reverted with good reason as the refs are as clear as day. Please note: four other people reverted also, withing the last 24 hours, I may add. Vitashaomi (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Vitashaomi,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 22:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

Bon Iver album

Hi Vitashaomi, I checked the "edit war"? and saw that you opened talk, so no worries. You are most welcome to keep on editing. Sorry I wasn't always available to help, and appreciate you initiating discussions. Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, and I know there was no problem (-: Vitashaomi (talk)
- I've left my response. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:08, 12 July 2011 (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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bombshell.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bombshell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]