Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg, 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.zimbio.com/pictures/x1Xiuz25OY3/Premiere+DreamWorks+Pictures+Number+Four+Arrivals/x1xb2vMa4m5/Jobie+Hughes. As a copyright violation, File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg 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:
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. Martin H. ( talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't have anything against him. It's just that the previous version is not only out of date, but it's also copyvio. I've sourced everything in the article that I've written, so it's not like it hasn't been said about him or isn't sourced somewhere. There's no agenda here except for ensuring that the article is up to date and includes ALL of the information out there about Hughes that is sourced, not just the stuff that makes him look good. Wikipedia isn't a place where we only include the nice things about people. As far as the novel article goes, that has a complete lack of sources that show notability. You claim that he's had an author review his book? Well, it's not sourced anywhere in the article and since I'd only been able to find two sources for the book, I redirected it to the author's page. We need multiple sources that are backed up in independent and reliable sources to show notability for the book, which don't seem to be out there. Hughes having worked on a notable series does not extend notability to all of his work. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Please be careful in talking to other editors to conform to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Referring to changes that you do not like as "vandalism" is against local policies, which are designed to help editors work collaboratively in an environment that can become heated. Violating these policies may lead to a block of your account. Anyone who edits Wikipedia to any extent is likely to encounter a dispute with another editor. If you disagree with an edit that another makes, you need to discuss that politely with him or her and, if you cannot reach consensus, pursue proper dispute revolution. If you have any questions about this, you're welcome to come by my talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article At Dawn (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At Dawn (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Jobie Hughes". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ohioana. In your entire career on Wikipedia you have never left a comment on a talk page. We rely on discussion here to resolve disputes. Since the report at WP:AN3 (mentioned above) suggests you've gone over the line, you can expect to be blocked if you won't join in discussions. In particular, you seem to be adding copyrighted material to articles, which is something that we do not tolerate on Wikipedia. Please join at Talk:Jobie Hughes to try to reach a compromise. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of bias. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston ( talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. The edits which resulted in this block were made by the underlying ip, not this specific account used by the editor. Appeal is to the Arbitration Committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana. Thank you.
Tokyogirl79 (
talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg, 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.zimbio.com/pictures/x1Xiuz25OY3/Premiere+DreamWorks+Pictures+Number+Four+Arrivals/x1xb2vMa4m5/Jobie+Hughes. As a copyright violation, File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg 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:
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. Martin H. ( talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't have anything against him. It's just that the previous version is not only out of date, but it's also copyvio. I've sourced everything in the article that I've written, so it's not like it hasn't been said about him or isn't sourced somewhere. There's no agenda here except for ensuring that the article is up to date and includes ALL of the information out there about Hughes that is sourced, not just the stuff that makes him look good. Wikipedia isn't a place where we only include the nice things about people. As far as the novel article goes, that has a complete lack of sources that show notability. You claim that he's had an author review his book? Well, it's not sourced anywhere in the article and since I'd only been able to find two sources for the book, I redirected it to the author's page. We need multiple sources that are backed up in independent and reliable sources to show notability for the book, which don't seem to be out there. Hughes having worked on a notable series does not extend notability to all of his work. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Please be careful in talking to other editors to conform to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Referring to changes that you do not like as "vandalism" is against local policies, which are designed to help editors work collaboratively in an environment that can become heated. Violating these policies may lead to a block of your account. Anyone who edits Wikipedia to any extent is likely to encounter a dispute with another editor. If you disagree with an edit that another makes, you need to discuss that politely with him or her and, if you cannot reach consensus, pursue proper dispute revolution. If you have any questions about this, you're welcome to come by my talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article At Dawn (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At Dawn (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Jobie Hughes". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ohioana. In your entire career on Wikipedia you have never left a comment on a talk page. We rely on discussion here to resolve disputes. Since the report at WP:AN3 (mentioned above) suggests you've gone over the line, you can expect to be blocked if you won't join in discussions. In particular, you seem to be adding copyrighted material to articles, which is something that we do not tolerate on Wikipedia. Please join at Talk:Jobie Hughes to try to reach a compromise. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of bias. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston ( talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. The edits which resulted in this block were made by the underlying ip, not this specific account used by the editor. Appeal is to the Arbitration Committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana. Thank you.
Tokyogirl79 (
talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)