Just as a heads-up, I've reverted your edit to Fire alarm pull station in regards to your placement of the copyvio tag. I wrote the passages in question myself for Wikipedia back in 2005 (check the history). From what I can tell, they stole from us, rather than the other way around. Thus the company is in the wrong and not us, because they're not providing attribution per the GFDL. It might even be worth throwing them a message to let them know that they're not in compliance with the GFDL. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 07:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
How is detailed info about an opening sequence "pretty standard"? It has to be notable, e.g. The Simpsons, The Prisoner, otherwise it's trivia IMO. I see nothing in WP:MOSTV supporting your claim. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Dick
ErikTheBikeMan (
talk) 18:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Warm south.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Allstar86 ( talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. What was your issue with my " good faith edits" of the Gaslighting article? A lot of it was straightforward copyediting for WP:TONE, and other aspects - such as moving the good-example origin of the term back to the lead - seemed fairly uncontroversial. The best way to build a good article is by consensus; if you only disagree with half of my changes, it's better to edit those half, than to revert the lot. Let me know what you think. -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only main example I removed was that of "don't tell an authority figure about this", in relation to child abuse, which seemed quite a tangential example. We'd need a source that specifically refers to this behaviour as "gaslighting", if we want to mention it here - if you've got one, feel free to link it. If you haven't, it'd be good to discuss this further on the article's talk page.
- The lesser examples ("reasons such as getting a court to declare the gaslightee mentally incompetent and grant custody of his/her estate and finances to the gaslighter") seemed a bit over-explanatory, but if you think they're useful, that's fine.
- I don't think I removed very much information, in all - most of my edits were for the sake of tone, or cutting the longer sections down for ease of reading. Examples like "when his wife says 'gee, that's odd, I could swear I remember doing XYZ'" aren't in the expected formal tone of encyclopaedia, and I don't think my rewording to "when the victim remarks on the oddness of the situation" actually removes any information, or would confuse a reader unfamiliar with the subject (even a fifth grader).
- I think the example in the lead was pretty clear, and an important one to open with and focus on, given that the term specifically originates from a character's actions in a stage play (and that those actions are a strong, easy-to-understand example of the term). -- McGeddon ( talk) 13:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
File:WPAbortion-logo.svg, you will be
blocked from editing. —
neuro
(talk) 17:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Starnes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Notability not claimed nor established. No references.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated John Starnes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Starnes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The deletion proposal/debate has been withdrawn, as I read the subject's official site and see some notability. I should've done this from the start..sorry. The notice from the page will go away shortly. I would suggest developing the article more, to establish notability, as there's a lot more claimed on the external link than the article. Also you may want to read about reliable sources. Sorry again, happy editing. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 13:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to source this section, and there are no references to speak of. That's why I removed it, because it has no sources and makes complete assumptions out of nothing, and also it is virtually going to be impossible to find sources that are NPOV; you're either going to find 'this network is great' or 'this network is the death of feminism' arguments that have no middle ground. Nate • ( chatter) 05:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- So God forbid we take the neutral stance of simply stating what the arguments being made are, without favoring one over the other? Or do you really feel it's "neutral" to sweep it under the rug and deny there's any broad criticism of the network, which is exactly what you're doing when presenting an article scrubbed of anything critical?
Nuberger13 (
talk) 05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article should be about the network itself, not the criticism of the network. A vast majority of the network articles do not have sections dealing with criticism except for rarities like
MTV and
BET, which have either separate articles about the criticism about the network, or deal with them in sourced terms which don't just throw weak volleys like they have TV movies with threadbare plots, use them to program entire days, or they cancel shows with low audiences. If you want to create a well-referenced and sourced article which has a title such as Criticism of Lifetime Television, then I would have no issue at all. But this entire section has only two sources, one dead which linked to a group's PR, and another an entertaiment blog. That is not good enough and has to be removed because it violates NPOV.
Nate • (
chatter) 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh enough with this trying to hide behind protocol crap, why don't you accept personal responsibility for your actions? It's not that is "has to be removed", it's that you're CHOOSING to remove it. The fact that you are making zero effort to afford this section a place in the article belies your bias. If you felt that the sourcing was insufficient, you could have gone and found other sources that you felt were -- but instead, you chose to simply scrap it, sanitizing the article of any trace of criticism. From where most people sit, that looks like a heavy bias on your part. The unbiased thing to do would have been to find critical sources which met with your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's polices...ah, but that would require you to set aside your pro-Lifetime bias, so screw it, right? To hell with wasting your time creating a COMPREHENSIVE article (i.e. including public reception, which includes strongly opposing viewpoints from most of the feminist community, most of the conservative community, and much of the intellectual-&-arts community).
Nuberger13 (
talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have no bias, and I did readd the section about Project Runway because that can easily be sourced. There had been no interest at all in readding the section for many months, and this was already placed under multiple cite tags under the Lifetime Movie Network article, which had turned into a long ramble about made-for-TV movie plots and stereotypes. I agree with most of the points about their films, but it needs to be sourced and meet our NPOV guidelines. I'm sorry, but as the text stood, it was unsalvagable. Nate • ( chatter) 09:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh enough with this trying to hide behind protocol crap, why don't you accept personal responsibility for your actions? It's not that is "has to be removed", it's that you're CHOOSING to remove it. The fact that you are making zero effort to afford this section a place in the article belies your bias. If you felt that the sourcing was insufficient, you could have gone and found other sources that you felt were -- but instead, you chose to simply scrap it, sanitizing the article of any trace of criticism. From where most people sit, that looks like a heavy bias on your part. The unbiased thing to do would have been to find critical sources which met with your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's polices...ah, but that would require you to set aside your pro-Lifetime bias, so screw it, right? To hell with wasting your time creating a COMPREHENSIVE article (i.e. including public reception, which includes strongly opposing viewpoints from most of the feminist community, most of the conservative community, and much of the intellectual-&-arts community).
Nuberger13 (
talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article should be about the network itself, not the criticism of the network. A vast majority of the network articles do not have sections dealing with criticism except for rarities like
MTV and
BET, which have either separate articles about the criticism about the network, or deal with them in sourced terms which don't just throw weak volleys like they have TV movies with threadbare plots, use them to program entire days, or they cancel shows with low audiences. If you want to create a well-referenced and sourced article which has a title such as Criticism of Lifetime Television, then I would have no issue at all. But this entire section has only two sources, one dead which linked to a group's PR, and another an entertaiment blog. That is not good enough and has to be removed because it violates NPOV.
Nate • (
chatter) 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
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
Butch Vig, 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.
This flag once was red
propaganda
deeds 19:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox instead. Thank you. Please place your comments on the article's talk page
Abce2|
Access
Denied 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Sand Mountain (Alabama) Wikiquette alert
Please note that I have posted an alert to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to attempt to resolve the issue of your personal attacks, and your labeling my good faith edits as vandalism. Eastcote ( talk) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, which you did here:
Talk:Sand Mountain (Alabama). If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you, your revision of my edits with no explanation as to why does not bode well. I understand that your sole purpose is to improve the article, yet your recent actions have been questionable to say the least. If you wish to improve the article, please let some of us more experianced editors help you in this endevour. Many of us have had numerous experiances in improving articles, I have personally helped improve articles that have been promoted to Good Articles on this project. I am willing to help as much as possible. You must understand that articles on wikipedia must be encyclopedic. As it stands now with the current version, there are many issues that prevent it from being a Good Article. Please bear in mind that anyone can edit wikipedia articles. No one editor owns any one article. As you feel close to this subject, I will allow you to lead in this endevour, my only wish is to help you along this long process. Lets work together to improve upon the articles merit and encyclopedic nature. Happy aeiting.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Sausage. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Mpdelbuono (
talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not
edit war by continually reinserting
non-neutral point of view material into the article
Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Edit warring will only result in you being blocked from editing. If you wish to discuss inclusion use the article's talk page.
Nja
247 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits by
edit warring. The next time you revert without using talk pages to discuss, you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia.
Nja
247 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
i agree, there is no need for burn warnings on the sausage page. way to let 'em know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.84 ( talk) 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
North Florida listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Florida. Since you had some involvement with the North Florida redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). NE2 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you were wrong to restore the prod tag; anyone, even the creator, can remove one. -- NE2 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:North-florida-counties-highlighted.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NE2 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to
Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors
do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on
Gaslighting. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content.
By reverting to your last edit of the article, you erased four months' of intervening edits from other Wikipedia users. -- McGeddon ( talk) 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Being bold is a very important aspect of Wikipedia, but please consider arguments of other editors. Saying that you should ignore all rules anyhow is not a valid answer to my concerns, namely that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts. Your mnemonic might be helpful, sure - but should not be presented in this form, unless you want to investigate on the existence and use of different mnemonics from reliable sources :) And by the way - no, I do not study all guidelines, just guess what the shortcut could be, and this usually takes me to text I want others to read, so they can understand my concerns. Faster and easier to understand that writing that myself... Rror ( talk) 23:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, for some reason your Twinkle nomination of this article for AfD did not add the tag to the article itself. I've done it, but I thought you should know that it didn't work the first time. ... discospinster talk 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Loblolly Pine. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Rror (
talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Loblolly Pine. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Rror (
talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Loblolly Pine. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that you added a large amount of unsourced and original research material to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Like with any article, everything in there needs to be verifiably derived from reliable sources. See WP:V. Please do not restore any unsourced material. Will Beback talk 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Dave Ramsey. [1] Please don't insert your personal Bible interpretations into articles. Aside from lacking a source, it wasn't directly relevant to the topic, which is how the suject interprets the emails sent to him. If you want to add interpretations of that parable, it's covered chiefly at Mark 10#The rich man and the eye of the needle. But you should still have a verifiable source. Will Beback talk 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Gen's Guiltless Gourmet, 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. -
FeralDruid (
talk) 05:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Incompetent edit to Standard form contract on 15 May 2009
The correct word is authority, NOT autonomy. Please read a book on the law of agency sometime. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4-note-shape-note-tunebook.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. — Jch thys 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Albert Pooholes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Albert Pooholes. Since you had some involvement with the Albert Pooholes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix| Talk 16:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article John Starnes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced BLP, too old for WP:BLPPROD. No indication of notability.
While all constructive 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. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Huon (
talk) 23:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Nuberger13. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Nuberger13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Creme broolay" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Creme broolay. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 3#Creme broolay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Un assiolo (
talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, I've reverted your edit to Fire alarm pull station in regards to your placement of the copyvio tag. I wrote the passages in question myself for Wikipedia back in 2005 (check the history). From what I can tell, they stole from us, rather than the other way around. Thus the company is in the wrong and not us, because they're not providing attribution per the GFDL. It might even be worth throwing them a message to let them know that they're not in compliance with the GFDL. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 07:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
How is detailed info about an opening sequence "pretty standard"? It has to be notable, e.g. The Simpsons, The Prisoner, otherwise it's trivia IMO. I see nothing in WP:MOSTV supporting your claim. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Dick
ErikTheBikeMan (
talk) 18:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Warm south.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Allstar86 ( talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. What was your issue with my " good faith edits" of the Gaslighting article? A lot of it was straightforward copyediting for WP:TONE, and other aspects - such as moving the good-example origin of the term back to the lead - seemed fairly uncontroversial. The best way to build a good article is by consensus; if you only disagree with half of my changes, it's better to edit those half, than to revert the lot. Let me know what you think. -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only main example I removed was that of "don't tell an authority figure about this", in relation to child abuse, which seemed quite a tangential example. We'd need a source that specifically refers to this behaviour as "gaslighting", if we want to mention it here - if you've got one, feel free to link it. If you haven't, it'd be good to discuss this further on the article's talk page.
- The lesser examples ("reasons such as getting a court to declare the gaslightee mentally incompetent and grant custody of his/her estate and finances to the gaslighter") seemed a bit over-explanatory, but if you think they're useful, that's fine.
- I don't think I removed very much information, in all - most of my edits were for the sake of tone, or cutting the longer sections down for ease of reading. Examples like "when his wife says 'gee, that's odd, I could swear I remember doing XYZ'" aren't in the expected formal tone of encyclopaedia, and I don't think my rewording to "when the victim remarks on the oddness of the situation" actually removes any information, or would confuse a reader unfamiliar with the subject (even a fifth grader).
- I think the example in the lead was pretty clear, and an important one to open with and focus on, given that the term specifically originates from a character's actions in a stage play (and that those actions are a strong, easy-to-understand example of the term). -- McGeddon ( talk) 13:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
File:WPAbortion-logo.svg, you will be
blocked from editing. —
neuro
(talk) 17:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Starnes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Notability not claimed nor established. No references.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated John Starnes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Starnes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The deletion proposal/debate has been withdrawn, as I read the subject's official site and see some notability. I should've done this from the start..sorry. The notice from the page will go away shortly. I would suggest developing the article more, to establish notability, as there's a lot more claimed on the external link than the article. Also you may want to read about reliable sources. Sorry again, happy editing. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 13:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to source this section, and there are no references to speak of. That's why I removed it, because it has no sources and makes complete assumptions out of nothing, and also it is virtually going to be impossible to find sources that are NPOV; you're either going to find 'this network is great' or 'this network is the death of feminism' arguments that have no middle ground. Nate • ( chatter) 05:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- So God forbid we take the neutral stance of simply stating what the arguments being made are, without favoring one over the other? Or do you really feel it's "neutral" to sweep it under the rug and deny there's any broad criticism of the network, which is exactly what you're doing when presenting an article scrubbed of anything critical?
Nuberger13 (
talk) 05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article should be about the network itself, not the criticism of the network. A vast majority of the network articles do not have sections dealing with criticism except for rarities like
MTV and
BET, which have either separate articles about the criticism about the network, or deal with them in sourced terms which don't just throw weak volleys like they have TV movies with threadbare plots, use them to program entire days, or they cancel shows with low audiences. If you want to create a well-referenced and sourced article which has a title such as Criticism of Lifetime Television, then I would have no issue at all. But this entire section has only two sources, one dead which linked to a group's PR, and another an entertaiment blog. That is not good enough and has to be removed because it violates NPOV.
Nate • (
chatter) 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh enough with this trying to hide behind protocol crap, why don't you accept personal responsibility for your actions? It's not that is "has to be removed", it's that you're CHOOSING to remove it. The fact that you are making zero effort to afford this section a place in the article belies your bias. If you felt that the sourcing was insufficient, you could have gone and found other sources that you felt were -- but instead, you chose to simply scrap it, sanitizing the article of any trace of criticism. From where most people sit, that looks like a heavy bias on your part. The unbiased thing to do would have been to find critical sources which met with your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's polices...ah, but that would require you to set aside your pro-Lifetime bias, so screw it, right? To hell with wasting your time creating a COMPREHENSIVE article (i.e. including public reception, which includes strongly opposing viewpoints from most of the feminist community, most of the conservative community, and much of the intellectual-&-arts community).
Nuberger13 (
talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have no bias, and I did readd the section about Project Runway because that can easily be sourced. There had been no interest at all in readding the section for many months, and this was already placed under multiple cite tags under the Lifetime Movie Network article, which had turned into a long ramble about made-for-TV movie plots and stereotypes. I agree with most of the points about their films, but it needs to be sourced and meet our NPOV guidelines. I'm sorry, but as the text stood, it was unsalvagable. Nate • ( chatter) 09:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh enough with this trying to hide behind protocol crap, why don't you accept personal responsibility for your actions? It's not that is "has to be removed", it's that you're CHOOSING to remove it. The fact that you are making zero effort to afford this section a place in the article belies your bias. If you felt that the sourcing was insufficient, you could have gone and found other sources that you felt were -- but instead, you chose to simply scrap it, sanitizing the article of any trace of criticism. From where most people sit, that looks like a heavy bias on your part. The unbiased thing to do would have been to find critical sources which met with your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's polices...ah, but that would require you to set aside your pro-Lifetime bias, so screw it, right? To hell with wasting your time creating a COMPREHENSIVE article (i.e. including public reception, which includes strongly opposing viewpoints from most of the feminist community, most of the conservative community, and much of the intellectual-&-arts community).
Nuberger13 (
talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article should be about the network itself, not the criticism of the network. A vast majority of the network articles do not have sections dealing with criticism except for rarities like
MTV and
BET, which have either separate articles about the criticism about the network, or deal with them in sourced terms which don't just throw weak volleys like they have TV movies with threadbare plots, use them to program entire days, or they cancel shows with low audiences. If you want to create a well-referenced and sourced article which has a title such as Criticism of Lifetime Television, then I would have no issue at all. But this entire section has only two sources, one dead which linked to a group's PR, and another an entertaiment blog. That is not good enough and has to be removed because it violates NPOV.
Nate • (
chatter) 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
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
Butch Vig, 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.
This flag once was red
propaganda
deeds 19:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox instead. Thank you. Please place your comments on the article's talk page
Abce2|
Access
Denied 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Sand Mountain (Alabama) Wikiquette alert
Please note that I have posted an alert to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to attempt to resolve the issue of your personal attacks, and your labeling my good faith edits as vandalism. Eastcote ( talk) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, which you did here:
Talk:Sand Mountain (Alabama). If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you, your revision of my edits with no explanation as to why does not bode well. I understand that your sole purpose is to improve the article, yet your recent actions have been questionable to say the least. If you wish to improve the article, please let some of us more experianced editors help you in this endevour. Many of us have had numerous experiances in improving articles, I have personally helped improve articles that have been promoted to Good Articles on this project. I am willing to help as much as possible. You must understand that articles on wikipedia must be encyclopedic. As it stands now with the current version, there are many issues that prevent it from being a Good Article. Please bear in mind that anyone can edit wikipedia articles. No one editor owns any one article. As you feel close to this subject, I will allow you to lead in this endevour, my only wish is to help you along this long process. Lets work together to improve upon the articles merit and encyclopedic nature. Happy aeiting.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Sausage. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Mpdelbuono (
talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not
edit war by continually reinserting
non-neutral point of view material into the article
Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Edit warring will only result in you being blocked from editing. If you wish to discuss inclusion use the article's talk page.
Nja
247 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits by
edit warring. The next time you revert without using talk pages to discuss, you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia.
Nja
247 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
i agree, there is no need for burn warnings on the sausage page. way to let 'em know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.84 ( talk) 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
North Florida listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Florida. Since you had some involvement with the North Florida redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). NE2 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you were wrong to restore the prod tag; anyone, even the creator, can remove one. -- NE2 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:North-florida-counties-highlighted.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NE2 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to
Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors
do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on
Gaslighting. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content.
By reverting to your last edit of the article, you erased four months' of intervening edits from other Wikipedia users. -- McGeddon ( talk) 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Being bold is a very important aspect of Wikipedia, but please consider arguments of other editors. Saying that you should ignore all rules anyhow is not a valid answer to my concerns, namely that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts. Your mnemonic might be helpful, sure - but should not be presented in this form, unless you want to investigate on the existence and use of different mnemonics from reliable sources :) And by the way - no, I do not study all guidelines, just guess what the shortcut could be, and this usually takes me to text I want others to read, so they can understand my concerns. Faster and easier to understand that writing that myself... Rror ( talk) 23:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, for some reason your Twinkle nomination of this article for AfD did not add the tag to the article itself. I've done it, but I thought you should know that it didn't work the first time. ... discospinster talk 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Loblolly Pine. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Rror (
talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Loblolly Pine. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Rror (
talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Loblolly Pine. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that you added a large amount of unsourced and original research material to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Like with any article, everything in there needs to be verifiably derived from reliable sources. See WP:V. Please do not restore any unsourced material. Will Beback talk 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Dave Ramsey. [1] Please don't insert your personal Bible interpretations into articles. Aside from lacking a source, it wasn't directly relevant to the topic, which is how the suject interprets the emails sent to him. If you want to add interpretations of that parable, it's covered chiefly at Mark 10#The rich man and the eye of the needle. But you should still have a verifiable source. Will Beback talk 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Gen's Guiltless Gourmet, 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. -
FeralDruid (
talk) 05:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Incompetent edit to Standard form contract on 15 May 2009
The correct word is authority, NOT autonomy. Please read a book on the law of agency sometime. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4-note-shape-note-tunebook.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. — Jch thys 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Albert Pooholes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Albert Pooholes. Since you had some involvement with the Albert Pooholes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix| Talk 16:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article John Starnes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced BLP, too old for WP:BLPPROD. No indication of notability.
While all constructive 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. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Huon (
talk) 23:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Nuberger13. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Nuberger13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Creme broolay" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Creme broolay. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 3#Creme broolay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Un assiolo (
talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)