User talk:Ciller

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! dbtfz talk 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

License tagging for Image:Kwbq myspace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kwbq myspace.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

KWBQ MySpace logo now has copyright tag
I've been nurturing the KWBQ article for a few months now. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kwbq myspace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kwbq myspace.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kasy-firstupnlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kasy-firstupnlogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KWBQ.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:KWBQ.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kasy myspace.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kasy myspace.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KWBQ-firstwblogo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:KWBQ-firstwblogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KWBQ Logo.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:KWBQ Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=600640527 your edit] to KRBK may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ], TMZ, Maury, Roseanne, and Cops Reloaded''.

On-air staff
Hello. Both of my explanations were the same... they both relate to WP:LISTPEOPLE. The WP:LISTPEOPLE states that in order for someone to be notable, they must either have a Wikipedia article, or must have a reliable source... read it and you'll find out. Also, there have been discussions about this issue because I was against removing the names at one point, but the more I read and was told the same thing I'm telling you, I understood and it made more since. Here is what a fellow user said:

As for the discussions, see here: Thanks,  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_10
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 9


 * They weren't the same. You said there wasn't a reliable source.  And you said they weren't notable.  Explain how the station's website isn't a reliable source, let alone the online videos that can be found with visual proof?  They are the station's first news team.  How is that not notable?  Then you came back with that a list of on-air doesn't relate WP:LISTPEOPLE.  Then explain how other TV stations can? To me, it sounds like you have a vendetta against one or more of the on-air staff of this station and are reaching for excuses to have them eliminated.  You speak as though you have ownership over this article on KRBK.  "you were against removing it at first".  Did somebody ask you to remove it and you refused?  Why did they come to you?  Then you comment that "that's the reason I deleted it in the first place".  Cocky.  Well, somebody else had a reason to put it there in the first place.  And I thought, compared to other TV stations that it also should be there...and that's why I did "undo" in the first place.

What is your connection to this TV station? I work at KRBK. I didn't realize I (or other users) needed your permission to add/delete or undo.

There is obviously a difference of opinion here. But I hope your opinion isn't based on false info (i.e. no reliable source) or a vendetta. mrsitcom (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, my name is Corky, not Cocky. (I'm offended and you shouldn't make any personal attacks.) Secondly, I'm from Kansas and the station I was referring to was WIBW-TV, which I have no connection too, other than sometimes watching their news. I had never even heard of the this station until I clicked on the link in an navbox. As for the not notable part, I had linked it to the WP:LISTPEOPLE, which obviously some people aren't smart enough to click it since it was linked. (You can check that in the summary edit when I put "non-notable staff.") Lately, I have been removing the staff from other articles, as are other users. I'll be asking a couple of other users for their opinions, more specifically the ones that told me about the news staff issue.  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  22:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First off...I called your comment "cocky"...not you. You do know what that means, right?  It means your statements sound arrogant.  And seriously?  You were offended?  Then it's time for you to get off the internet.  Secondly, you didn't answer my questions at all.  How is the station's website not a reliable source?  You removed it because you said it didn't have a reliable source.  How is that not a source?  You aren't answering because you were wrong.

mrsitcom (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the "Cocky". I've had people call me that before, and they didn't mean what you meant and I just read it wrong. And where did I say it needed a reliable source at on the history page? I can't find it anywhere. I said I removed unsourced titles/slogans AND non-notable staff and the revert was "On-air staff" does NOT meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, which is why I took it off in the first place. Also, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY as Wikipedia is not a directory. That being said, it doesn't mean I removed the names because it was unsourced, but the fact that they were not notable. So to your question, a primary source is not sufficient for inclusion in an article. It should have third-party sources to go along with it. Are you happy now? I responded to the question.  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  03:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on KRBK. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at KRBK. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring to restore material against consensus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)