User talk:AKR619/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Also, you should know that there is a history of a former user being blocked because of his behavior regarding adding Aladdin (1992 film) to Films considered the greatest ever. I'm removing your entry because just receiving nominations does not make any film "the greatest". I suggest that you look over the history of the page, and the talk page to get a sense of what belongs and what doesn't. And if you happen to be that former user, I hope you are returning with a better attitude. -- Sam uel Wan t man 07:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Television Shows Considered The Greatest Ever
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, AKR619! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \burbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 08:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

John Candy article
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Vbd (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible article
Regarding the Kim Possible's article Fan Reaction, if you're going to add fan-pairings around, you must be sure that those pairings are popular around the fandom as the one known as Kigo (Kim/Shego) is. The main reason for which Kigo is mentioned is because of it's notability, something you can easily prove by searching around Fanfiction.net or DeviantART, and as far as I'm concerned, those pairings are nowhere as popular as Kigo. Including minor notable fan-pairings like that is what could turn the article into a fan-site.

I'm not going to remove that just yet, but rather give you time to either prove it's notability or remove it yourself. At any rate, if you have something to say, I'd rather you discuss it in the article's Talk Page or reply here, I'll keep track of you so I'll know when you'll reply. --Alexlayer 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been looking around ff.net, DeviantART and other sites, but yet I haven't found ANY mention about fanfics likes the one you stated in Kim Possible's article. I'm not going to give you all the time of the world 'cause I can't allow irrelevant and probably fake information to be shown like that. Either you prove that that paragraph is worth mentioning or I'll remove it soon. --Alexlayer 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's what the kids in the pre-school class I teach keep telling me (Dave The Barbarian is married to Kim Possible), and I believe another user has tried to put Dave as one of the love interests. So would that count as fan-fic? User:AKR619


 * No, it doesn't. Fanfics means a writting history about the shown. Check around here. If you check around here and you'll find what Kigo (Kim/Shego) Fics are. Other than that, I haven't found any Kim/Junior or Kim/Dave material, specially because Kim and Dave are from differents series! (And, as far as I know, differents in much ways).


 * You can't base your contributions on Wikipedia acording to just what some little kids says, information in Wikipedia must be sourced from either another website or some other media, like a book or a novel (In case we're talking about facts of fictional characters). Considering this, I can't allow that paragraph to be there anymore.


 * Please, next time you decide to contribute in some article, make sure to talk in said article's Talk Page before attemting some major changes. --Alexlayer 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I hate to do this, but you're acting against what's been decided and without giving any valid policy, and opinions only count in the Talk Pages. So please start acting like a good wikipedian or I'll have to report. --Alexlayer 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

John Cena
Please stop adding that John Cena is/was going to be the voice of Dave the Barbarian without putting an actual cite on the page. This allows readers to seek out and verify the information on their own. Claiming it was said in some documentary in an edit summary causes it to fail Verifiability.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Howy Parkins
I have added a "" template to the article Howy Parkins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Bravo
I redirected the episode articles because they are not notable on their own. Please read WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT for guidelines on when individual TV episode articles may be notable, and what those articles should contain. The fact that individual articles exist for other TV programs isn't a factor (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Also, you will notice that the Drawn Together episode articles pretty much fit the guidelines mentioned above). Therefore, I have reverted those articles back to redirects.  Please do not restore them unless you can make them fit Wikipedia's policies.

Similarly, I have redirected Johnny Bravo (character) back to the main article. I note that you say you are going to expand it, and feel free to restore it when you do that, but until then it is only duplicating the information in the main article.

Another idea might be to expand the list of episodes with a quick summary of each one, a bit like this page. Thanks,  Eliminator JR Talk  15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK
Please read the talk page guidelines to format your posts for readability. You may also want to see WP:NOT for what wikipedia is not - it's not an indiscriminate collection of information, so lists of things in video games usually aren't considered particularly encyclopedic; they're better embedded in the main page's text. WLU 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not even linked to the main page, it's an orphan. There is no way to get to the page except by typing in exactly the correct page title. There's no redirects or links to other pages. It may not be a good choice for a page. How many items are there in the game? Is there really so many that it couldn't be a bulleted list in the main page? WLU 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphan tag
Please leave the orphan tag until more links are established to List of things in Dave the Barbarian. It currently links to exactly one page, Dave the Barbarian, and is still considered orphaned. Also, consider merging the contents of the page into the individual episode pages if they exist, with the remainder going into the main Dave the Barbarian page. The page is short enough, with few enough items that it could easily be moved over; having a separate list of items is less helpful than integrating the information with individual pages as there is no information to link the separate sections together. WLU 13:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

John Cena, again
For the second time in as many weeks you have added information that John Cena has recorded a voice over part for Dave the Barbarian, and for the second time it has been removed. IMDb is not a reliable source, as anyone can add information there, be it true or not. If you can find any (reliable) cite that says this happened, or that this episode he supposedly recorded aired, please share it, but until then it won't be allowed to stay in the article.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop it. As it states on the WGA page of IMDb, the WGA furnishes writing credits. Nothing more. The Writers Guild has nothing to do with casting. If it was real it wouldn't be so hard to find even one other cite for the episode existing.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop with the edit war you are currently engaged in on the Hall of Fame page. If this matter persist you may be blocked from editing wikipedia.Wrestlinglover420 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Curse of the Black Pearl
I'd like to review that statement. Could you give me a proper transcript of that interview please? Alientraveller 09:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Austereo doesn't give out transcripts of the interviews, they're not even able for purchase, don't why but it's their strange policy. User:AKR619 —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * Hehe, funny though, I never saw this in any other reliable source. Still, you struck gold! Next time though, always refer to people by their surname, not "Ted and Terry". Alientraveller 10:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on, which station? Alientraveller 10:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According one of the hosts, Camilla, all of them, but I heard it on b105 User:AKR619 —The preceding  signed but undated.

Steve Martin/Doctor Who (1996 film)‎
Hello. You re-added Steve Martin to the Casting section of the above article, with the explanation that he "revealed in his book that he also auditioned for the role and he desperately wanted it". Which book is this supposed to be in? Martin doesn't appear to be mentioned in executive producer Phil Segal's own book on the making of the film, Doctor Who: Regeneration. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Aladdin & 1992 Academy Awards
Thanks for your comments on Aladdin in the entry on the 65th Academy Awards. I put "citation" tags on several of the things you wrote because they are opinions without a source. Rather than simply deleting those tags, you need to provide the source for that information. I think this could be done in a couple of ways... one would be to say: "According to XXXXX," and give us the name of the documentary that made these assertions. Another would be to add a note or reference for the section and name the source. As it currently stands, these entries don't meet the wikipedia policies for citing a reliable source. Anson2995 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments...
I don't appreciate this comment you made. I happen to be one of the people who decided that it was original research to use an oscar nomination or win to be a citation for a film being the "best" of a genre. I don't think this is a "retarded" idea, rather, I think it is keeping with the policies that make Wikipedia successful. If you think it is a bad idea, the appropriate response is a note on the discussion page explaining your reasons. It does not help to call people retards. Please familiarize yourself with our policies on civility. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

John Cena
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to John Cena. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Daffy Duck
Please stop adding unsourced, nonsense edits to the Daffy Duck page. All edits to Wikipedia must be sourced to verifiable, reliable sources. I will continue to remove the information from Daffy Duck until you provide a source and justify why this information belongs on the page. You may wish to familiarize yourself with our manual of style for fiction-related articles, as well, as many of your edits violate it. Thanks, — Brian ( talk ) 11:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 05:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Second warning
Less than two weeks after calling me "retarded", you call another editor "a retard" in this edit comment. Please stop making personal attacks. Wikipedia only functions if everyone behaves with civility. It is alright to discuss why you disagree with an edit. It is not alright to call someone a "retard". If you continue you will be blocked from editing. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More warnings
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Tiggerjay 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Tiggerjay 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the way you want to put it, what you did to my talk page is considered vandalisim. If you've seen the way Carl treats Johnny in the show you'll see he's obsessed with him --AKR619 03:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:121.221.92.148
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Tiggerjay 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've warned you twice about this very thing. I'm blocking you for 24 hours. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly did I do wrong, I didn't do any personal attacks on any person just ku klux klan--AKR619 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the ambiguously posted "Racist!" could have been meant to be a comment about the edit and not the editor, but considering the rest of the comments, it reads as an attack -- calling the editor a racist.
 * There is an implication that the editor is a member of the Klu Klux Klan, which to many people would be very insulting. If you had knowledge that the editor was a member of the KKK, it would not be wrong to mention that, but in that case point #3 would have been more of an attack.
 * The use of the word "retarded" implies that the editor is a retard. This is exactly the word I had concerns about twice before.
 * Any way I interpret "Save it for your retarded ku klux klan meetings" it reads as a personal attack. If the editor is a KKK supporter the comment calls him retarded for his beliefs.  If the editor is not a KKK supporter the comment calls him a retard and adds the possible insult that he is a KKK member.
 * I appreciate the motivation of not wanting racist comments made. However, even the worst, most offensive actions require a civil response. --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever
An article that you have been involved in editing, Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. -- Reaper  X  03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Television series considered the greatest ever
An article that you have been involved in editing, Television series considered the greatest ever, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Thank you. Bob talk 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hornswoggle
He is still a SmackDown superstar, he just appears on RAW occasionally. It's the same with Ric Flair, he is still technically a SmackDown wrestler.  TJ   Spyke   06:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Recreating AfD'd pages
You have recently recreated or reposted material which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this page without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the page's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. tgies (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the history of the page and moved it to a shared user-space that I've created for lists such as this one. I believe that the page could be improved enough so that it might survive in the main-space.  You might recall, that I argued to keep the page when it was on AFD.  However, I do think that it had many problems, as does your recreation, but the problems are fixable.  The main problem is that the things cited for each actor are not directly on point.  If you are going to use quantity of awards, you should also cite an authority that makes the assertion that winning the most awards is significant.  (Films considered the greatest ever also has this problem in the Academy Award section.)  If the article improves enough, I would be willing to be an advocate for its return to the main-space.  For now, you can find it at User:Wikilists/Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever.  I suggest that you be more careful with your edit comments, especially when you are doing something that is bound to be controversial (like recreating a deleted page).  Implying that people are hypocrites will not help you make friends and influence people. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do remember you arguing it for it to be kept, you were one of the few, and I agree it does need to be improved and trust me I promise to keep a very closeful eye on the page to make it as less POV as films considered the greatest ever. --AKR619 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add links to your userspace re-creation in the article namespace to avoid self-references. Graham 87 11:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE Armageddon
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.  TJ   Spyke   08:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WM23
Edge's claim is not that notable. When he was feuding with Cena for the WWE Championship in summer/fall 2006, he claimed that he was undefeated in TLC matches (even though that was false, he and Christian lost TLC III).  TJ   Spyke   03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Your addition of the "icons" website to Doctor Who has been reverted, as this is not a reliable source. This is because it is seemingly a completely arbitrary selection with no apparent basis. You seem to have a habit of doing this and I advise you to read our policy on what is a reliable source otherwise you will be blocked for your disruptive editing. -- Rodhull andemu  05:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Equally, Outpost Gallifrey isn't a reliable source. You must list where THEy got it from. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 10:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Amblin Entertainment
Hi, in this artticle, you recently said "would you all please stop deleting these" in the caption to a recent edit, referring to a number of mentions of Amblin that were "uncredited" on the films. On that basis, can you cite the sources from which you derive the information that they were actually involved - I find it surprising that Amblin should do such work and NOT be acknowledged on the film credits. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid (1989 film)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Annie D (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Amblin
I've replied here. Next time you would like assistance from and admin, please leave links to the history diffs that are examples of the problem you want dealt with, and check that your links work. It took me some time to find the User you wanted me to look at, because you had misspelled the link. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you stay away from the Amblin page for a while. Nobody seems to support your changes, and they have posted reasonable reasons for reverting you on the discussion page.  You comments about being called a sockpuppet have no reason to be in an edit summary for an article.  If anything, the comments make you look more guilty of the accusation.  Your edits are becoming disruptive.  If you revert the Amblin page again, without first having built a strong consensus for your change on the discussion page, you will be asking for a block. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you can provide sources for your claims that Amblin produced films like The Terminator and the Indiana Jones series, please stop adding them to the article. Also, your recent blind revert removed some valid info and formatting. Please be more careful in the future. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stay away from the Amblin page! If you continue to change the page again, I will suggest to get you blocked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.21.173 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember this?

I'm guessing the reason why there were clips for Splash, Forrest Gump and the first two Terminator movies in that documentary '''is because ILM had some involvement with the special effects. Amblin still didn't produce those movies, nor did they produce Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.''' -Gabrielkat (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember!

science fiction
your stock you puted on the page is way too political and not enough science fiction, I would say and I suspect. We all know politics has many allure but does it make it science fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despres (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Themes, plot devices and motifs
You deleted this section in Alfred Hitchcock, amongst others, claiming 'a breach of trademark'. I think a single question would be apposite - where is this 'registered as a trademark'? To comment on motif and signature in a film is not in itself an infringement of intellectual property. Such large scale deletions should be discussed beforehand. If necessary take up it up at WP:MCQ. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are on 3RR on Frank Oz, if you feel strongly about it, you should initiate discussion on the talk page, rather than engaging in an edit war. My own suspicion is that this kind of content needs to be more developed than its current form for inclusion. BUT you cannot apply the results of a decision amongst the editors at Frank Oz, to the rest of wikipedia. If you do feel that those sections in other articles have copyright implications please do bring it up at the media copyright questions for central discussion, blatting those articles without discussion is trying to create a wheel war - and I doubt if continuation of it will be tolerated. It's WP:POINT and disruptive. Take a break, think about some substance and referenced content for that Oz article - and discuss the matter with the other editors. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Robin Williams
Um, look at the diff of your edit, and you might want to skim WP:Don't template the regulars. Gimmetrow 06:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that, it was an honest mistake as my first revert came at the same time as the one reverting vandalisim, I thought you were being a smart arse who was reverting the page back to its vandalisim. --AKR619 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disney Legends
This category was deleted by consensus here, which is why it's being deleted after you create it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories are not usually created as the result of discussions. They are created, and then if objected to, a discussion decides if they should be deleted. If you object to the decision to delete you can bring it to Deletion Review. Looking at the previous discussion to delete, I would concur with the decision to delete. The overcategorization guideline clearly tries to limit categories for awards. As you point out, there are a fair number of these categories, and their numbers are increasing. That, in itself isn't a justification for creating more of them. I suspect a fair number, if not most of the awards categories should be deleted, and perhaps they will over time. You can choose to follow the guidelines or work counter to them. A better tact if you think the guideline is wrong, is to discuss changing it at WT:OCAT. You might first read the discussions that led to the creation of the guideline in the first place, to help you understand why we created it. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --AKR619 (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

science fiction themes
I understand that you believe that the themes you are adding the the page are common and well-known, but i simply disagree. Hence the onus is on you to WP:proveit, and until sources exist i must revert their addition. These common themes you are claiming don't appear in sources i checked, like the Encylopedia of Science fiction.

Incidentally, consensus doesn't overide WP:verify, the core policy i was referring too. And consensus with that particular user does nothing to convince me, after the offensive and incoherent msges he leaves on my talk page and in edit summaries. Also neither of you have ever responded to my attempts at discussion on the articles talk page, is there a reason for that? Perhaps if you explain why your edits don't need any sources, i might agree?Yobmod (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Home and Away character articles
Hello. In your recent restorations of unreferenced material to the character articles, you mentioned in some edit summaries that the material is allowed by the "Wikipedia rulebook". Could you please point to the specific parts of the policy to which you're referring? For reference, the part of Wikipedia policy which I believe supports my actions is No original research. That policy page states that "Primary sources" includes "television programs", and that "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", and to the extent that any primary sources are used, the article must "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source".

The show sure can be used as a reliable source for descriptive claims (though preferably with specific inline citations to episode numbers, rather than just general reference to a show with thousands of episodes). However, most of the stuff I removed engaged in some ways in synthesis and speculation. Here is an example from the stuff you restored to Colleen Stewart:


 * '"Colleen was very upset, but was pleased when Sally pulled through. She now knows that Cassie is pregnant after telling Cassie that she's put on a little bit of weight and Cassie then went up to Colleen and said "Actually Mrs Smart I am pregnant." ... She was apprehensive about Cassie because she is HIV Positive at first, not being fully aware about it. Though at the same time sympathised with her.'

Please let me know which portion of Wikipedia policy you believe backs up your restoration of this unreferenced synthesis/original research to an article. Also, I will ignore your accusation of vandalism in your edit summary, but if you continue such disruptive and uncivil behaviour in the future you may be blocked from editing. - Mark 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you planning at all on answering me? If you can't provide a specific reference to policy to back up your claims, I'll go through and revert your edits. - Mark 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I am, calm down, I'm still looking for the specific references --AKR619 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Still looking? - Mark 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Billy Connolly
Per WP:BLP I have removed your category addition to the article regarding Connolly being a naturalised citizen of Australia. There is nothing in the article to indicate this and I cannot find anything to back that up elsewhere. This information will not be accepted unless you can provide a reputable third-party source. 23skidoo (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lula's First Barbarian
An article that you have been involved in editing, Lula's First Barbarian, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Lula's First Barbarian. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? – sgeureka t•c 08:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pirates
There was an IP – whose number is always changing, but always starts with '92.12 or 92.13' – who insists on including it even if he/she acknowledges it is a rumour. Maybe they'll edit irregularly and someone can swat them whenever they pop up (similarly, I'll never be able to block the person adding copyright violations to Peter Sanderson's article, but whenever they surface every few weeks or so I immediately undo them). Alientraveller (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional lords and ladies
First of all, You may wish to read WP:VAND before accusing others of "vandalism".

Second, please stop re-creating the category. Just because a character may decide to call themself a lord or lady, doesn't mean we should categorise by it.

If they are nobility, then they should be categoried under Category:Fictional nobility (where the rest of the "lords and ladies" are already). - jc37 12:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Amblin Entertainment
In these edits you removed a factual accuracy dispute tag from the Amblin Entertainment article, and restored movies to the article which are disputed by another editor and for which specific, reliable and verifiable sources have been requested. The rationale for their inclusion which you previously provided on the article's talk page is, as two other editors have already stated there, faulty and makes a leap of original research/synthesis on your part. The fact that you believe what your surmise from a documentary indicates something is nowhere near the level of proof demanded of challenged claims on Wikipedia. If you add back this material again without providing any new justification or source supporting your claim, then I will consider your behaviour disruptive to the encyclopedia and either protect the article from editing or block you from editing.

I also notice from your contributions that you have again been accusing people of "vandalism" when you disagree with their editorial actions. Let me refresh your memory about what I wrote earlier in the month: "if you continue such disruptive and uncivil behaviour in the future you may be blocked from editing".

Finally, have you found the policy which backs you up in relation to the Home and Away character articles yet? Last chance to find me some specific references, otherwise I'll go through and revert them back down to the stub versions in the next day or two. - Mark 11:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)