Hi Srobak, just FYI, my IP address is shared among multiple computers. The edits you mentioned were not done by me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gluonman( talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you just undid my efforts to make a page adhere to Wikipedia standards. The American Dance Therapy Association, thegoverning body of dance therapy has a comprehensive list of dance therapists. The list on the Wikipedia page only includes one pioneer of dance therapy and then two people who I think are just self-promoting. The section should either have a link to the list from the American Dance Therapy Association or the heading "List of Dance Therapists" should not exist. It will encourage dance therapists to put themselves down on the list. 206.69.212.108 ( talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and clarifying. The American Dance Therapy Association certifies dance therapists, so if anyone had the correct list, it would be them. Since this is not possible to put down, perhaps the heading is the problem. It should probably say "Famous Dance Therapists" because there hundreds of certified dance therapists. Would that be more appropriate? I just want the page to be accurate. If so, I am not sure that the people listed could stay on this list. One is a dead link, and the other woman seems to be promoting herself using wikipedia. 206.69.212.108 ( talk) 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Why did you tag this title and its talk page for A10 speedy deletion? Neither redirects nor talk pages may be A10 deleted, and they're quite useful as well. Nyttend ( talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Srobak. I received a message where you stated that I "added inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Army and Air Force Exchange Service; it is considered vandalism". Well, I don´t consider that is an "inappropiate" image so it is the current logo which has been recently updated as can seen on Exchange website [1] and others. What I did make wrong was to indicate that it was a copyrighted logo (as I supposed) instead of a public domain image.
I never had the intention of commiting vandalism so I have uploaded a lot of logos of different companies before (as well as many articles) and never received a warning about those images. But I´ll keep in mind anyway.
Regards,
Fma12 (
talk)
11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, regarding this edit, could you please exaplain in detail how and from where the article is closely paraphrased? You shouldn't drop that tag on an article without explaining. Also, I have addressed your notability concerns on the talkpage, so would appreciate it if you could read that and remove the notability tag. Finally, what on earth made you tag it as a "new and unreviewed article"? -- Beloved Freak 09:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Please watch your language on the editing page. You have been warned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumkwat ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The above referenced article about a boat builder based in the United States is located in Category:American boat builders, however, you reverted my edit and returned it to parent Category:Boats. Not arguing, but would sincerely appreciate an explanation for the exception being taken to Wikipedia/Categorization/Subcategorization/Diffusion. Thanks, Gjs238 ( talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak, the relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization, which says in part in the "Categorizing pages" section Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. So looking at the article Chris-Craft, it is already in Category:American boat builders, which is itself in Category:Boat builders which in turn is in Category:Boats. The article is already in its most specific category (American boat builders) and so does not have to be in the parent (Boat builders) or grandparent (Boats) categories. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please explain this warning? To me it seems a excessive looking at the vandalism in question. Also, why did you not revert the vandalism itself? Yoenit ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Yoenit ( talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for listening to peoples' concerns about your vandalism warnings at ANI and accepting the problem, I was impressed by your response once you understood what you'd done wrong - I hope it doesn't now descend into a big fight.
I hope in the future you'll remember to assume good faith more from newbies and IPs. For the ones who aren't being willfully destructive, a friendly note explaining how to improve generally helps change their behaviour better than an automated warning. -- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
...respond to ANI. But very slowly. Give it 12 hours at least between replies. And if no one else contributes to the thread, don't say anything at all. Otherwise this is going to end badly. Egg Centric ( talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The 220 note is standard and is intended for uploads whose pixel width is less than that number. IE, if someone uploads a portrait that is only 100px wide. And then adds it to the template...WITHOUT specifying that the width is only 100px....then the template will default the pic to 220 and the result will be a low quality grainy image. That is for "portrait" format only. For all landscape (or wide) formatted images....the field for landscape must be set to yes and the image width set to250. Otherwise the result will be a box that is WAY too wide. The IP edit setting the Clapton image width to 250 was valid as it was setting the image to the proper width for landscape images. All musician templates which contain a wide format image should be corrected to the values found in the Clapton template for consistency. So if you notice any super-wide musician infoboxes....they aren't formatted properly and should be corrected. Hope that helps. Wiki libs ( talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you reverted some of my recent edits to The O.C. page. I've brought up the reasoning for my edits here. Your opinion would be very much appreciated to get the dialogue started. Ryanlively ( talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've declined your nomination of the above page because it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria you specified.
Please be more careful with your tagging, and I'm not sure that you're going to get the expected result from this sort ofshotgun tagging, anyway. Thanks — DoRD ( talk) 20:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
indef}}
template on it, or take it to
WP:MFD if you wish, but it really doesn't qualify for CSD. Thanks —
DoRD (
talk)
21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Hi. I'm sort of confused by your revert of my contribution to the Beats by Dre page. I edited in the "product placement", stating that Beats by Dre appeared on American Idol numerous times. Isn't that what product placement is? The placement of a product in a situation? Please advise. Thank you. Soyseth ( talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The article List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Listen, I don't know what happened or where you came from, but Luke Vibert has elements of acid jazz written all over his work. Even down to the trip-hop elements. I see that you have a history of being controversial, so let's just leave it that. Don't revert my edit! Lighthead ( talk) 04:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I know what acid generally means, it means analogue in most genres. But in the term "acid jazz" it means electronic. Or you tell me.. At least that's what I gather; there's nothing analogue about most acid jazz. Lighthead þ 19:10, 24 June 2011
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to
User_talk:Dimaspivak has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
warning or blocking template. Please use the
user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Looking at your talk page, it is clear that you have been warned in the past against abusing warning templates. As I was clearly not vandalizing your page, your use of it once again constitutes continued misuse of said template. Please attempt to engage in civil discourse in the future before simply trying to intimidate editors with whom you have a disagreement. If you need a refresher on what constitutes actual vandalism, please read
WP:VAND.
Dimaspivak (
talk)
08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was very angry at the time, and I'm sorry if I sounded like a jerk in my response to Eaglestorm on his talk page. I will reconsider giving up. I'm very inexperienced here, and I've screwed up a lot. Thanks for your reply. Stevie011 ( talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:BLANKING, the prohibition against removal of declined block notices only holds as long as the block is active. Once it's expired, the user is free to dispose of notices. Favonian ( talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stay off the above page - your actions could be construed as WP:BAITING. The situation's being dealt with. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I agree with you. I just saw the other blues musicians in the category and thought it was appropriate to be inclusive.-- ³ Slowhand Blues ¯ 07:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand what your problem with my addition to the Adidas page was. I simply stated the facr, as neutrally as I could, that they had been criticised by Greenpeace, a story that ran widely in the international press. In fact, I linked to an article in the British Telegraph, though there are myriad other respectable news outlets on all sides that reported. You also say 'We've been over this before' though I'm not aware of having any edits reverted by you. Perhaps I missed it?
Also, you changed my edit to the possessive of Adidas. Because Adidas is the name of the company - a proper, singular noun - the correct possessive form is 'Adidas's'. Surely there are neutrality issues with grammar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshstride ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the person who started the Afd for T. Rafael Cimino, and am glad to see participation in the potential removal of an incorrect page that has polluted Wikipedia for about four years. I hope you understand, but I've removed some of your comments per WP:AFDEQ, as they are unsourced negative comments about a living person. I'm as anxious as anyone to see this Afd resolved, but we should keep our discussion limited to the claims made in the article, and whether or not they can be substantiated. And as you're probably aware, with or without those comments, it pretty much looks like this article will be deleted. Cheers, Steamroller Assault ( talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, MAJOR problems with COI and article fornat, style, and sourcing. I do believe that, poor as its current state is, the article can be fixed to show meeting of GNG and ENT, and as it is currently written, the problems would take several days (part-time editing) to rectify. As no one else has opined for delete, and it cannot be userfied to its COI author, I request that the AFD be closed early and the darn thing moved to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Del Zamora. I will check back with you once it has been brought into line with existing policy for BLPs, and will urge the author to observe its step-by-step inmprovement as a learning exercize. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
why you say my edit is a spam.... you see the ref? ther are new...and go to the site...to see is if no true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelm1988 ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
... just go ahead and revert them. You don't need to come tell me about it. Vranak ( talk) 04:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, all bickering aside, isn't the rule on overlinking that there shouldn't be two of the same links within the same screen? Not the same article. Because someone might, for instance, go directly to the Legacy section and want a quick link to SRV, but not have that handy link to click. Do you see? Vranak ( talk) 05:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
...if the edit is not obviously vandalism, as was the case with my edit. 76.190.196.103( talk) 21:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Also note that you are one revert away from breaking WP:3RR. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:BLANKING is incorrect. Until fairly recently, anons could even remove active block notices if they so desired. No distinction is made whether the IP is static or dynamic or whatever. Please desist.-- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I request that the word Kamikaze in the plot of Space Battleship Yamato (2010 film) be reworded into something else. Many Japanese friends of mine have seen that and are offended by it. Please simply change the wording. 67.183.156.150 ( talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted thisedit you made to the article as the cited reference confirms the statement made in Kumwat's addition. I will also be shortly removing the vandalism warning you placed on that user's talkpage. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk pages are not to be used to complain about other editors, and your comments at User talk:Colofac were not acceptable. If you have an issue, then WP:ANI or the dispute resolution process are the proper forums, not a blocked user's talk page, and insinuations that a third editor will be "dealt with". Courcelles 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing your attention to this disruptive user. I'm almost certain that this person is deliberately trying to be annoying (as they ignore eveything said to them), but I'm hoping that your message will discourage any further incidents. -- James26 ( talk) 03:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a good explanation as to why you placed a FORUM message on this talk page. Talking about how a user can acquire better people skills is entirely on topic and relevant to their current block. I'm inclined to remove your comment as unhelpful and disruptive. Viriditas ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't say thanks enough for the support you provided on my talkpage during my block. It is a shame that it descended into an opportunity for other users to grave dance but you were there defending me. Thanks again :) Colofac ( talk) 14:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
So I know for next time, which policy should have been cited? Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak ( talk), I corrected Saved by the Bell to Saved by the Bell. That is not overlinking. 173.79.59.83 ( talk) 11:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak (talk), Please make actual tangible edits --, like the ref [4] is a dead link, but you don't make that correct, instead you revert me--, instead of reverting for a high edit count!
Since you are focusing on overlinking, all the
Carrie Heffernan
Doug Heffernan
The King Of Queens are clickable, yet you arent making them unclickable! Instead you are focusing on
Saved by the Bell. SBTB is mentioned 2 times in the article.
Carrie Heffernan is in the article 2x, and both times clickable.
Doug Heffernan is the article 2x, both times clickable.
The King Of Queens is in the article 5x(not including filmography table) and it is clickable 4x.
So I dont think that
Saved by the Bell in the intro & early life sections is overlinking. It is just 2x in the whole entire article.
173.79.59.83 (
talk)
17:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That is the thing. THERE ARENT OVERLINKS. The links of SBTB, KOQ, Heffernans are all ok. Are you reading /understanding properly ?I didnt tell you why you make the edits you do. Lastly, I didnt edit your page. I didnt do anything to any other comments on your page. I posted a response to you, is that what you mean ? YOU need to to read WP:BLANKING bc I am following the rules. 173.79.59.83( talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The article isnt overlinked.
1) When I wrote 'please make tangible', it isnt me telling you why you are making edits. I'm not in your head. I wrote that out of frustration as I see other things in the article, so I dont get why you are on my back for 1 edit. If you took it as an accusation then perhaps it was wrong of me to accuse of you trying for a high edit count. I dont know you to know if that is your mantra however there are many like that on here.
2) I copied what was on my page into the section here on your page for it to be a conversation so all I did was paste on here what you wrote on my page. That is wrong? To put everything together? about WP:BLANKING I thought you were saying to not blank my page after I responded to you. That is allowed. It makes sense for the coversation to be in 1 place right?
3) This
here makes sense. PERCEPTION is everything. I did feel like you were coming after me, when now you share that you watch
WP:PATROLS.
173.79.59.83 (
talk)
18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
With that - this issue has drawn to a close. Please bring up any further misunderstandings on talk:Leah Remini - and it would be prudent to do so prior to continuing down that edit path. One further note - you should WP:REGISTER.
I asked for an impartial/neutral editor to look at the page. Didnt you see where I asked? But no you want to make threats. so you too are warned. 173.79.59.83 ( talk) 18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice to meet you Airplaneman ✈ 00:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not force to hate Wikipedia because of you! I did not vandalize any article. I just added lost column, which is the soundtrack and with citation and references not as you mentioned.
-- Neogeolegend ( talk) 14:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review
Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe
listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
i have asked copyrights community to change the type of license! please don't be hurry to speed deletion.
-- Neogeolegend ( talk) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Srobak,
I'm afraid I cannot agree with the conclusion you have drawn from the Oxford Dictionary. If I might cite the passage in question:
Personal names that end in –s
With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:
He joined Charles’s army in 1642.
Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.
Thomas's brother was injured in the accident.
I would suggest that "Wells's novels" follows exactly the same rule as does "Dickens's novels," since the s is not pronounced separately (see "Bridges" below).
Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example:
St Thomas’ Hospital
That, of course, does not apply in this case.
If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website.
With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:
The court dismissed Bridges' appeal. Connors' finest performance was in 1991.
The last rule is invoked when the addition in speech of a possessive s would result in inelegant pronunciations such as "Bridges's" or "Connors's." That is a separately pronounced s. The s is omitted in speech and therefore not written. I hope you will agree that it does not apply in the case of Dickens or Wells.
Regards, Hengistmate ( talk) 23:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it may be a little harsh to give that IP an 'only warning' for every vandalism made. A level 1 warning for the 1st vandalism, and then a level 2 for the second if he continues and so on. Just a kind suggestion. Anyway, I reported that IP already. Cheers. GrayFullbuster ( talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Srobak, I see now that I interpreted the Mars Williams ref incorrectly. The thing that threw me, I think, was the original description (in the Wikipedia article) of him "training" as a classical clarinettist, a description one doesn't usually use for a child who was about seven when he started. So I incorrectly assumed that he trained on the clarinet after he was an adult. Now that I've read the ref more closely, I've changed the article to say that he played classical clarinet for ten years, then switched to the saxophone his senior year of high school. Hopefully, we can agree on the new wording. - AlanUS( talk) 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you confirm whether you accept the BBC as a 'reliable source'? Cordings ( talk) 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - very inexperienced in Wiki speak. Any help gratefully received? Cordings ( talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit baffled about the messages you left on my talk page -- the edit I reverted was a bot edit, and the bot edit didn't add a person to the Snowmobile article, so I don't qute understand the rationale behind your messages. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak, just FYI, my IP address is shared among multiple computers. The edits you mentioned were not done by me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gluonman( talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you just undid my efforts to make a page adhere to Wikipedia standards. The American Dance Therapy Association, thegoverning body of dance therapy has a comprehensive list of dance therapists. The list on the Wikipedia page only includes one pioneer of dance therapy and then two people who I think are just self-promoting. The section should either have a link to the list from the American Dance Therapy Association or the heading "List of Dance Therapists" should not exist. It will encourage dance therapists to put themselves down on the list. 206.69.212.108 ( talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and clarifying. The American Dance Therapy Association certifies dance therapists, so if anyone had the correct list, it would be them. Since this is not possible to put down, perhaps the heading is the problem. It should probably say "Famous Dance Therapists" because there hundreds of certified dance therapists. Would that be more appropriate? I just want the page to be accurate. If so, I am not sure that the people listed could stay on this list. One is a dead link, and the other woman seems to be promoting herself using wikipedia. 206.69.212.108 ( talk) 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Why did you tag this title and its talk page for A10 speedy deletion? Neither redirects nor talk pages may be A10 deleted, and they're quite useful as well. Nyttend ( talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Srobak. I received a message where you stated that I "added inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Army and Air Force Exchange Service; it is considered vandalism". Well, I don´t consider that is an "inappropiate" image so it is the current logo which has been recently updated as can seen on Exchange website [1] and others. What I did make wrong was to indicate that it was a copyrighted logo (as I supposed) instead of a public domain image.
I never had the intention of commiting vandalism so I have uploaded a lot of logos of different companies before (as well as many articles) and never received a warning about those images. But I´ll keep in mind anyway.
Regards,
Fma12 (
talk)
11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, regarding this edit, could you please exaplain in detail how and from where the article is closely paraphrased? You shouldn't drop that tag on an article without explaining. Also, I have addressed your notability concerns on the talkpage, so would appreciate it if you could read that and remove the notability tag. Finally, what on earth made you tag it as a "new and unreviewed article"? -- Beloved Freak 09:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Please watch your language on the editing page. You have been warned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumkwat ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The above referenced article about a boat builder based in the United States is located in Category:American boat builders, however, you reverted my edit and returned it to parent Category:Boats. Not arguing, but would sincerely appreciate an explanation for the exception being taken to Wikipedia/Categorization/Subcategorization/Diffusion. Thanks, Gjs238 ( talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak, the relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization, which says in part in the "Categorizing pages" section Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. So looking at the article Chris-Craft, it is already in Category:American boat builders, which is itself in Category:Boat builders which in turn is in Category:Boats. The article is already in its most specific category (American boat builders) and so does not have to be in the parent (Boat builders) or grandparent (Boats) categories. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please explain this warning? To me it seems a excessive looking at the vandalism in question. Also, why did you not revert the vandalism itself? Yoenit ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Yoenit ( talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for listening to peoples' concerns about your vandalism warnings at ANI and accepting the problem, I was impressed by your response once you understood what you'd done wrong - I hope it doesn't now descend into a big fight.
I hope in the future you'll remember to assume good faith more from newbies and IPs. For the ones who aren't being willfully destructive, a friendly note explaining how to improve generally helps change their behaviour better than an automated warning. -- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
...respond to ANI. But very slowly. Give it 12 hours at least between replies. And if no one else contributes to the thread, don't say anything at all. Otherwise this is going to end badly. Egg Centric ( talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The 220 note is standard and is intended for uploads whose pixel width is less than that number. IE, if someone uploads a portrait that is only 100px wide. And then adds it to the template...WITHOUT specifying that the width is only 100px....then the template will default the pic to 220 and the result will be a low quality grainy image. That is for "portrait" format only. For all landscape (or wide) formatted images....the field for landscape must be set to yes and the image width set to250. Otherwise the result will be a box that is WAY too wide. The IP edit setting the Clapton image width to 250 was valid as it was setting the image to the proper width for landscape images. All musician templates which contain a wide format image should be corrected to the values found in the Clapton template for consistency. So if you notice any super-wide musician infoboxes....they aren't formatted properly and should be corrected. Hope that helps. Wiki libs ( talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you reverted some of my recent edits to The O.C. page. I've brought up the reasoning for my edits here. Your opinion would be very much appreciated to get the dialogue started. Ryanlively ( talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've declined your nomination of the above page because it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria you specified.
Please be more careful with your tagging, and I'm not sure that you're going to get the expected result from this sort ofshotgun tagging, anyway. Thanks — DoRD ( talk) 20:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
indef}}
template on it, or take it to
WP:MFD if you wish, but it really doesn't qualify for CSD. Thanks —
DoRD (
talk)
21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Hi. I'm sort of confused by your revert of my contribution to the Beats by Dre page. I edited in the "product placement", stating that Beats by Dre appeared on American Idol numerous times. Isn't that what product placement is? The placement of a product in a situation? Please advise. Thank you. Soyseth ( talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The article List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Listen, I don't know what happened or where you came from, but Luke Vibert has elements of acid jazz written all over his work. Even down to the trip-hop elements. I see that you have a history of being controversial, so let's just leave it that. Don't revert my edit! Lighthead ( talk) 04:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I know what acid generally means, it means analogue in most genres. But in the term "acid jazz" it means electronic. Or you tell me.. At least that's what I gather; there's nothing analogue about most acid jazz. Lighthead þ 19:10, 24 June 2011
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to
User_talk:Dimaspivak has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
warning or blocking template. Please use the
user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Looking at your talk page, it is clear that you have been warned in the past against abusing warning templates. As I was clearly not vandalizing your page, your use of it once again constitutes continued misuse of said template. Please attempt to engage in civil discourse in the future before simply trying to intimidate editors with whom you have a disagreement. If you need a refresher on what constitutes actual vandalism, please read
WP:VAND.
Dimaspivak (
talk)
08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was very angry at the time, and I'm sorry if I sounded like a jerk in my response to Eaglestorm on his talk page. I will reconsider giving up. I'm very inexperienced here, and I've screwed up a lot. Thanks for your reply. Stevie011 ( talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:BLANKING, the prohibition against removal of declined block notices only holds as long as the block is active. Once it's expired, the user is free to dispose of notices. Favonian ( talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stay off the above page - your actions could be construed as WP:BAITING. The situation's being dealt with. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I agree with you. I just saw the other blues musicians in the category and thought it was appropriate to be inclusive.-- ³ Slowhand Blues ¯ 07:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand what your problem with my addition to the Adidas page was. I simply stated the facr, as neutrally as I could, that they had been criticised by Greenpeace, a story that ran widely in the international press. In fact, I linked to an article in the British Telegraph, though there are myriad other respectable news outlets on all sides that reported. You also say 'We've been over this before' though I'm not aware of having any edits reverted by you. Perhaps I missed it?
Also, you changed my edit to the possessive of Adidas. Because Adidas is the name of the company - a proper, singular noun - the correct possessive form is 'Adidas's'. Surely there are neutrality issues with grammar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshstride ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the person who started the Afd for T. Rafael Cimino, and am glad to see participation in the potential removal of an incorrect page that has polluted Wikipedia for about four years. I hope you understand, but I've removed some of your comments per WP:AFDEQ, as they are unsourced negative comments about a living person. I'm as anxious as anyone to see this Afd resolved, but we should keep our discussion limited to the claims made in the article, and whether or not they can be substantiated. And as you're probably aware, with or without those comments, it pretty much looks like this article will be deleted. Cheers, Steamroller Assault ( talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, MAJOR problems with COI and article fornat, style, and sourcing. I do believe that, poor as its current state is, the article can be fixed to show meeting of GNG and ENT, and as it is currently written, the problems would take several days (part-time editing) to rectify. As no one else has opined for delete, and it cannot be userfied to its COI author, I request that the AFD be closed early and the darn thing moved to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Del Zamora. I will check back with you once it has been brought into line with existing policy for BLPs, and will urge the author to observe its step-by-step inmprovement as a learning exercize. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
why you say my edit is a spam.... you see the ref? ther are new...and go to the site...to see is if no true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelm1988 ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
... just go ahead and revert them. You don't need to come tell me about it. Vranak ( talk) 04:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, all bickering aside, isn't the rule on overlinking that there shouldn't be two of the same links within the same screen? Not the same article. Because someone might, for instance, go directly to the Legacy section and want a quick link to SRV, but not have that handy link to click. Do you see? Vranak ( talk) 05:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
...if the edit is not obviously vandalism, as was the case with my edit. 76.190.196.103( talk) 21:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Also note that you are one revert away from breaking WP:3RR. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:BLANKING is incorrect. Until fairly recently, anons could even remove active block notices if they so desired. No distinction is made whether the IP is static or dynamic or whatever. Please desist.-- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I request that the word Kamikaze in the plot of Space Battleship Yamato (2010 film) be reworded into something else. Many Japanese friends of mine have seen that and are offended by it. Please simply change the wording. 67.183.156.150 ( talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted thisedit you made to the article as the cited reference confirms the statement made in Kumwat's addition. I will also be shortly removing the vandalism warning you placed on that user's talkpage. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk pages are not to be used to complain about other editors, and your comments at User talk:Colofac were not acceptable. If you have an issue, then WP:ANI or the dispute resolution process are the proper forums, not a blocked user's talk page, and insinuations that a third editor will be "dealt with". Courcelles 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing your attention to this disruptive user. I'm almost certain that this person is deliberately trying to be annoying (as they ignore eveything said to them), but I'm hoping that your message will discourage any further incidents. -- James26 ( talk) 03:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a good explanation as to why you placed a FORUM message on this talk page. Talking about how a user can acquire better people skills is entirely on topic and relevant to their current block. I'm inclined to remove your comment as unhelpful and disruptive. Viriditas ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't say thanks enough for the support you provided on my talkpage during my block. It is a shame that it descended into an opportunity for other users to grave dance but you were there defending me. Thanks again :) Colofac ( talk) 14:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
So I know for next time, which policy should have been cited? Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak ( talk), I corrected Saved by the Bell to Saved by the Bell. That is not overlinking. 173.79.59.83 ( talk) 11:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Srobak (talk), Please make actual tangible edits --, like the ref [4] is a dead link, but you don't make that correct, instead you revert me--, instead of reverting for a high edit count!
Since you are focusing on overlinking, all the
Carrie Heffernan
Doug Heffernan
The King Of Queens are clickable, yet you arent making them unclickable! Instead you are focusing on
Saved by the Bell. SBTB is mentioned 2 times in the article.
Carrie Heffernan is in the article 2x, and both times clickable.
Doug Heffernan is the article 2x, both times clickable.
The King Of Queens is in the article 5x(not including filmography table) and it is clickable 4x.
So I dont think that
Saved by the Bell in the intro & early life sections is overlinking. It is just 2x in the whole entire article.
173.79.59.83 (
talk)
17:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That is the thing. THERE ARENT OVERLINKS. The links of SBTB, KOQ, Heffernans are all ok. Are you reading /understanding properly ?I didnt tell you why you make the edits you do. Lastly, I didnt edit your page. I didnt do anything to any other comments on your page. I posted a response to you, is that what you mean ? YOU need to to read WP:BLANKING bc I am following the rules. 173.79.59.83( talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The article isnt overlinked.
1) When I wrote 'please make tangible', it isnt me telling you why you are making edits. I'm not in your head. I wrote that out of frustration as I see other things in the article, so I dont get why you are on my back for 1 edit. If you took it as an accusation then perhaps it was wrong of me to accuse of you trying for a high edit count. I dont know you to know if that is your mantra however there are many like that on here.
2) I copied what was on my page into the section here on your page for it to be a conversation so all I did was paste on here what you wrote on my page. That is wrong? To put everything together? about WP:BLANKING I thought you were saying to not blank my page after I responded to you. That is allowed. It makes sense for the coversation to be in 1 place right?
3) This
here makes sense. PERCEPTION is everything. I did feel like you were coming after me, when now you share that you watch
WP:PATROLS.
173.79.59.83 (
talk)
18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
With that - this issue has drawn to a close. Please bring up any further misunderstandings on talk:Leah Remini - and it would be prudent to do so prior to continuing down that edit path. One further note - you should WP:REGISTER.
I asked for an impartial/neutral editor to look at the page. Didnt you see where I asked? But no you want to make threats. so you too are warned. 173.79.59.83 ( talk) 18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice to meet you Airplaneman ✈ 00:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not force to hate Wikipedia because of you! I did not vandalize any article. I just added lost column, which is the soundtrack and with citation and references not as you mentioned.
-- Neogeolegend ( talk) 14:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review
Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe
listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
i have asked copyrights community to change the type of license! please don't be hurry to speed deletion.
-- Neogeolegend ( talk) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Srobak,
I'm afraid I cannot agree with the conclusion you have drawn from the Oxford Dictionary. If I might cite the passage in question:
Personal names that end in –s
With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:
He joined Charles’s army in 1642.
Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.
Thomas's brother was injured in the accident.
I would suggest that "Wells's novels" follows exactly the same rule as does "Dickens's novels," since the s is not pronounced separately (see "Bridges" below).
Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example:
St Thomas’ Hospital
That, of course, does not apply in this case.
If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website.
With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:
The court dismissed Bridges' appeal. Connors' finest performance was in 1991.
The last rule is invoked when the addition in speech of a possessive s would result in inelegant pronunciations such as "Bridges's" or "Connors's." That is a separately pronounced s. The s is omitted in speech and therefore not written. I hope you will agree that it does not apply in the case of Dickens or Wells.
Regards, Hengistmate ( talk) 23:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it may be a little harsh to give that IP an 'only warning' for every vandalism made. A level 1 warning for the 1st vandalism, and then a level 2 for the second if he continues and so on. Just a kind suggestion. Anyway, I reported that IP already. Cheers. GrayFullbuster ( talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Srobak, I see now that I interpreted the Mars Williams ref incorrectly. The thing that threw me, I think, was the original description (in the Wikipedia article) of him "training" as a classical clarinettist, a description one doesn't usually use for a child who was about seven when he started. So I incorrectly assumed that he trained on the clarinet after he was an adult. Now that I've read the ref more closely, I've changed the article to say that he played classical clarinet for ten years, then switched to the saxophone his senior year of high school. Hopefully, we can agree on the new wording. - AlanUS( talk) 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you confirm whether you accept the BBC as a 'reliable source'? Cordings ( talk) 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - very inexperienced in Wiki speak. Any help gratefully received? Cordings ( talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit baffled about the messages you left on my talk page -- the edit I reverted was a bot edit, and the bot edit didn't add a person to the Snowmobile article, so I don't qute understand the rationale behind your messages. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)