User talk:Bananastalktome

Regarding User talk:203.4.183.34
Hello.

I had administered a third warning to the user(s) shortly ago. I had noticed that you had administered a second warning. You should have administered a fourth warning, as that is the current level that the user(s) deserves after their/his/her edits. Thanks. 76.254.122.124 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have, however I decided to indicate a failure to properly cite material instead of indicating vandalism, since I am unclear with the particular subject of the article and decided to assume good faith in this matter (since, for all I know, this could have been a legitimate claim). - Bananas talk to me 02:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable statement, however, in my opinion, if there is a bad faith pattern taking place, it likely indicates that the edit was made in bad faith, and, therefore, a final warning should still be administered, based on my experience, however, on the other hand, it could have been a different user at that IP address. I still believe that it pays to give a final warning since it appears that there is a pattern of vandalism by at least one user of that IP address. Note that states that one should create an account to avoid warnings intended for other users. Given this information, it pays to administer a final warning, and, if any innocent users are affected, they may follow that advice and create an account. Thanks. 76.254.122.124 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki !
Hey you, why can't you appreciate the false information I'm putting up? It's humorous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phony Historian (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bananastalktome
I have recently recieved a message from you regarding my edit to your wiki on MSG and it's effects on the consumer. You seemed to have disregarded my input saying that it did not add anything to the page. I would like you to review my edit one more time and I think you will find that it adds vital information to the wiki, and without, it may be lacking the credibility that you need. Regards, theaceofspades1x Theaceofspades1x (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As per your request, I have reviewed my edit (|here) and stand by my decision (and have noticed further edits to this page which have been reverted by a different user). If this is not the edit you are questioning, please let me know.  Bananas talk to me 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:76.16.17.222
Hi. I blocked this IP you reported.

Thanks for watching over our content! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am learning about Wikipedia and I apologize for overstepping my bounds. I was under the impression that people could put whatever they wanted. That has to be the only way that Navy Times has been labeled a neutral good natured magazine. I fully understand now that this page is monitored and you are correct, my view of the paper is skewed to say the very least.

See, I am a well established successful Sailor and I had a Sailor, shipmate and friend die right in front of me in my ER. Navy Times wrote a completely false article, slapped it on a headline and exploited his death for shock value. Most of what they said, I know for a fact is untrue.

That being said, this seems to be such a hush hush thing and they are still sold on my bases. My heart broke this morning in formation when my LCPO referenced one of their articles.... the heartbreak started on friday when my Commanding Officer mentioned them as a credible news source.

Did not mean any disrespect to wikipedia, I thought maybe some Navy Times cronies were over riding my posts.

Please, consider the types of articles they post. I promise you, first hand, being there, watching him die. They are a vicious, heartless, tasteless tabloid.

Very Respectfully, HM2 (SW/AW/FMF) No Name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.176.137 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Tildeslash Monit Screenshot.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Tildeslash Monit Screenshot.png

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just caught an IP making threats of violence on your talk page - I've reverted it for you. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thank you.  Bananas talk to me 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Tildeslash Monit Screenshot.png
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Tildeslash Monit Screenshot.png

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tildeslash Monit Screenshot.png
Thank you for uploading File:Tildeslash Monit Screenshot.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)