![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Thanks for uploading Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.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) 11:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.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) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
FOR GOD SAKE STOP DOING THIS! The bot is haywire. The image DOES qualify, you're a stupid bot and do not understand what you're doing. Either go get a human or GO AWAY! Garth M ( talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, this is INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING. I have added an historically-significant image and this stupid thing keeps deleting it! If I weren't so bloody-minded, I'd have just said "to hell with this" and Wikipedia would be the poorer.
Revise your damn bot. Garth M ( talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. The solution is to apply for page protection, which I will do. When you say "Removed obviously self-selected quote boxes", don't make assumptions. I added them, and have no connection to him. They do add to the article, they give noteworthy reception of him. Fences& Windows 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, you might notice that a lot of the edits you were concerned about earlier, like removal of the bankruptcy, were edited out last year and nobody noticed. I have simply attempted to restore them. Garth M ( talk) 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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)
18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:C2NPIIExtractS-31878886.pdf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
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. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
— Tom Morris ( talk) 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have posted the Andrew Landeryou issues on the BLP noticeboard. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that
biographical information about living persons must not include
unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to
Andrew Landeryou, you must include proper
sources. If you don't know how to
cite a source, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. --
Brandonfarris (
talk)
13:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Per this diff, you have a conflict of interest with the subject of Andrew Landeryou. You have attempted to add negative information concerning the subject's bankruptcy and further have uploaded private information about the subject and posted it on the talk page. You are warned not to contribute on this article or you will be blocked from editing for violating WP:COI and WP:BLP. Please see WP:BLPBAN for more information.--v/r - T P 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Make sure you're not violating WP:3RR with all the reverts you're making there; it's probably time to take your concerns to the talk page. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing. --
Brandonfarris (
talk)
08:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at James Campbell (journalist) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Mt king (edits) 08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but please read our
guide to appealing blocks first.Mainly for the stuff going on at James Campbell (journalist) and related articles. – MuZemike 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Age hacking scandal. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please discuss and agree your edits before making them or you will see yourself blocked again.
Mt
king
(edits)
03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No offense intended, nor am I meaning to WP:BITE you, but you seem well on your way to a block. You seem to have violated a topic ban a ADMIN placed on you; you have been edit warring; you have been repeatedly rude on your own talk page (see one of the BetacommandBot sections above; there is no need for that. Sure, you can say it is haywire. Just don't use words that would not call your parents with, such as "stupid", "dumb", etc., if anything); it all adds up, and you could well be on your way to a indef (non-expiring) block, eventually.
Basically, you may want to tone down how you are communicating, and read Wikipedia's WP:RULES.
Think of your options:
And before you ask:
Thanks. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | For continued violations of the biographies of living persons policy, you are hereby placed under the sanction of a topic ban. Due to your admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject of the Andrew Landeryou article and your edit-warring on this article, you are indefinitely banned from editing either the Andrew Landeryou or Andrew Landeryou talk pages. This topic ban is made under the provisions of the BLP special enforcement WP:BLPBAN and may be overturned by clear community consensus at WP:Arbitration Enforcement or by the Arbitration Committee. This sanction is recorded on the special enforcement log and may only be overturned by a clear consensus at the Arbitration enforcement board, or by the Arbitration Committee. Individual administrators are prohibited from overturning this sanction without clear and specific community consensus. Further violations of the BLP policy will result in you being banned from editing. v/r - T P 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Thanks for uploading Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.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) 11:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.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) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
FOR GOD SAKE STOP DOING THIS! The bot is haywire. The image DOES qualify, you're a stupid bot and do not understand what you're doing. Either go get a human or GO AWAY! Garth M ( talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, this is INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING. I have added an historically-significant image and this stupid thing keeps deleting it! If I weren't so bloody-minded, I'd have just said "to hell with this" and Wikipedia would be the poorer.
Revise your damn bot. Garth M ( talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. The solution is to apply for page protection, which I will do. When you say "Removed obviously self-selected quote boxes", don't make assumptions. I added them, and have no connection to him. They do add to the article, they give noteworthy reception of him. Fences& Windows 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, you might notice that a lot of the edits you were concerned about earlier, like removal of the bankruptcy, were edited out last year and nobody noticed. I have simply attempted to restore them. Garth M ( talk) 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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)
18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:C2NPIIExtractS-31878886.pdf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
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. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
— Tom Morris ( talk) 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have posted the Andrew Landeryou issues on the BLP noticeboard. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that
biographical information about living persons must not include
unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to
Andrew Landeryou, you must include proper
sources. If you don't know how to
cite a source, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. --
Brandonfarris (
talk)
13:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Per this diff, you have a conflict of interest with the subject of Andrew Landeryou. You have attempted to add negative information concerning the subject's bankruptcy and further have uploaded private information about the subject and posted it on the talk page. You are warned not to contribute on this article or you will be blocked from editing for violating WP:COI and WP:BLP. Please see WP:BLPBAN for more information.--v/r - T P 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Make sure you're not violating WP:3RR with all the reverts you're making there; it's probably time to take your concerns to the talk page. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing. --
Brandonfarris (
talk)
08:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at James Campbell (journalist) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Mt king (edits) 08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but please read our
guide to appealing blocks first.Mainly for the stuff going on at James Campbell (journalist) and related articles. – MuZemike 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Age hacking scandal. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please discuss and agree your edits before making them or you will see yourself blocked again.
Mt
king
(edits)
03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No offense intended, nor am I meaning to WP:BITE you, but you seem well on your way to a block. You seem to have violated a topic ban a ADMIN placed on you; you have been edit warring; you have been repeatedly rude on your own talk page (see one of the BetacommandBot sections above; there is no need for that. Sure, you can say it is haywire. Just don't use words that would not call your parents with, such as "stupid", "dumb", etc., if anything); it all adds up, and you could well be on your way to a indef (non-expiring) block, eventually.
Basically, you may want to tone down how you are communicating, and read Wikipedia's WP:RULES.
Think of your options:
And before you ask:
Thanks. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | For continued violations of the biographies of living persons policy, you are hereby placed under the sanction of a topic ban. Due to your admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject of the Andrew Landeryou article and your edit-warring on this article, you are indefinitely banned from editing either the Andrew Landeryou or Andrew Landeryou talk pages. This topic ban is made under the provisions of the BLP special enforcement WP:BLPBAN and may be overturned by clear community consensus at WP:Arbitration Enforcement or by the Arbitration Committee. This sanction is recorded on the special enforcement log and may only be overturned by a clear consensus at the Arbitration enforcement board, or by the Arbitration Committee. Individual administrators are prohibited from overturning this sanction without clear and specific community consensus. Further violations of the BLP policy will result in you being banned from editing. v/r - T P 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |