User talk:Whotheman2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Dissidia control scheme english.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dissidia control scheme english.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dissidia control scheme english.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dissidia control scheme english.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) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dissidia control scheme english.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dissidia control scheme english.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoA

Hello there! If you are new to Wikipedia, welcome; I know it might be a little confusing at first, but I have noticed that you keep removing material from BoA's article. According to Wikipedia's policy, the material should not be removed unless it is unsourced (and it does have references). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks, Ink Runner (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BoA

How is it incorrect? It is, according to Wikipedia, a reliable source. If there is another reliable source that disputes it (for example, her official website, Oricon, etc.), please post that. Otherwise, it shouldn't be removed. Ink Runner (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BoA footnote 21

Britney Spears, Brian McKnight, and Janet Jackson are listed too — it's just that their names are written in katakana (the Japanese characters). Ink Runner (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoA

PLEASE stop removing cited content from BoA's article. As I have already pointed out in my above message, those artists are listed on the page cited; it's just that their names are written in katakana. Ink Runner (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BoA's influences

Whether I want her to be compared to Britney Spears and Janet Jackson is besides the point. According to Wikipedia policy, it is a perfectly acceptable source, and there is no reason whatsoever not to include them. The article is supposed to be expository of facts, but not opinion-based, and seeing those artists cited as her sources may provide the reader with a better understanding of the shaping of her musical style. Ink Runner (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You're a [REDACTED]

Unnecessary? Hardly. Irrelevant? It pertains to BoA's image and artistry, doesn't it? The more information, the better. And so what if it wasn't there a month ago? One of the core features of Wikipedia is the ability to constantly improve its articles. Besides, a month ago, the article wasn't exactly FA-quality. I would prefer that BoA be portrayed in a good light, but Wikipedia, with its policy of NPOV, is not the place for that. Only the facts matter here. Ink Runner (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whotheman2006, please be civil when discussing articles with other users. Comments like "you're a tool" are not productive, and will only serve to inflame the situation. If everyone will remain civil and respectful of other opinions, it makes it all the more easy to arrive at a nice solution to any dispute. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

As has been explained before, the details you removed are explicitly mentioned on the official Japanese BoA site (see Talk: BoA#Image and artistry). Your personal opinion of these artists is not valid grounds for removal. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

I reiterate what Gordonofcartoon has said. Do not edit war to remove a sourced statement. Instead, discuss the matter with other editors in civil terms (no insults! [1]). I am sorry you were insulted above.[2] That was a poor example to follow.

I declined to block you for this single incident of incivility. See this discussion. (permanent link) Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and then edit your remark to comply. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are 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.

You have made the same contested edit of BoA once every day since the start of September - no matter that consensus is against your view. However, this is not tolerated on Wikipedia and any repeat will result in your indef blocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Rape of Asian cinema

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Olly¹⁵⁰ 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Dragonball (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Dragonball (film)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Dragonball (film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to BoA, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Moon) and (Sunrise) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to BoA. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (Moon) and (Sunrise) 04:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BoA

Er, I don't just delete content arbitrarily; I try to ensure that articles' content abides by Wikipedia's rules as closely as possible. I want to see BoA eventually become a Featured Article, and the criteria for FAs are very, very high. (I should know, it took me three tries to get only one article to FA status.) I'm not the only one who edits the page, so if you have an issue with the content, please post it on the article's talk page. Since Moon-sunrise is another major contributor, it might be nice to get him to weigh in on the matter. And what's a "dai lou"? Ink Runner (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]