User talk:Cw6165

February - May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. -- Gnowor Talk2Medid wha? 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Ditto for Tug McGraw--Hokeman (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Saint Patrick. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --moreno oso (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

yeoldewoburn.net is not a reliable source. You have been warned about this, and moreno provided you links explaining our sourcing policy. Please do not make further additions of material sourced to this site. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Saint Patrick. 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. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --moreno oso (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Saint Patrick, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --moreno oso (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to National Lampoon's European Vacation. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to National Lampoon's European Vacation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at EuroTrip, you may be blocked from editing. CRJ200flyer (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

LBH Edits
Battle of the Little Bighorn is an article that falls under the rubric of WikiProject Military History WP:MILHIST. Their guidelines for "In Popular Culture" references read as follows:
 * "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items, and in particular the following, should be avoided:


 * Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia)

The content that you are attempting to add to the article clearly violates this policy. Continuing to try to include it constitutes vandalism to the article. Sensei48 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark McGwire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Cubs Is Dead


A tag has been placed on The Cubs Is Dead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Feezo (Talk) 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit on What's Up, Doc? (Bugs Bunny short)
I removed your edit on the article as it is cruft we don't need. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Many of your edits are cruft, unsourced, original research, or a combination of the three. Please mind this in the future. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Cardinal Nation. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Holliday. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of baseball nicknames. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Roger Maris. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I also did a little tagging on Yankee Universe too. I try to be 100% fair and impartial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Running Man (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  McDoob AU  93  00:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Line of succession to the British throne. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Skol fir (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit at King Ralph which refers to another article (where your edit was reverted, see above). We don't use other articles as sources in this way. Not only to they not meet our criteria at WP:RS, they can change radically. I'm not sure if you ever read this page. It's important to read what other editors have said to you, and it's important to respond. Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise and it's vital that editors communicate with each other.Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Blocked for failure to communicate after many complaints and warnings and my message above.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen your email and emailing me seems to miss the point entirely. You weren't blocked because of your edit last night, although linking to a subscription only site was a valid reason for removing your edit. There are instructions above telling you how to get the block removed, if you follow them and make it clear that you understand why you were blocked and will start communicating I'm sure someone will unblock you. You will of course then be expected to start using talk pages and WP:Edit summaries which I see you also don't use. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you created your account in early 2007 you have made something over 800 eduts. Over 99% were to article-space; you appear to have been unable or unwilling to communicate with other editors, either on your or their talk-pages or on article talk-pages, in spite on a number of requests to do so. So, before we consider unblock, are you prepared in future to (1) read messages appearing on your talk-page, (2) respond to them, (3) follow wikipedia policy as regards editing, and (4) use edit summaries? If you are unclear on these points, a referral to the welcome message at the top of this page will refresh your memory. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the duplicate, identical, unblock request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying like all get out to resolve this situation. I feel as though I have been completely civil, but I'm being made to feel like I'm being blacklisted.Cw6165 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cw6165, why don't you also type something that's not in a template? This would help to reassure the admin considering the unblock request, that you understand how to do so now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. I just used the basic template and edited over it. I just want to be unlocked pure and simple. I did not mean to do anything wrong.Cw6165 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please add your comments to the end of the page, not somewhere in the middle, or else people are very unlikely to see them - I've moved your latest ones down here for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And on the subject of your unblock request, nobody is accusing you of being uncivil, and while I'm sure you don't intend to do anything wrong, we need to be convinced that you do understand what you were doing wrong - if you don't understand it, you can't really stop it. And unfortunately, you don't appear to understand why you were blocked. You have lots of warnings on this Talk page, which don't mention plagiarism. What you need to do is re-read all those warnings, look back at the edits to which they refer, and try to understand them. Then convince us here that you really do understand what you have been doing wrong, and explain what you will do differently in future - you can either update the unblock request itself, or add your explanations here as ordinary comments -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How's this for end of the page? :)Cw6165 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Now try an edit summary...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be unblocked pure and simple. i know i did something wrong and i'll never do it again.

I am sorry for what I did. I'm trying my level best to understand the basics of Wikipedia. Hopefully, I'm doing this right. I did something wrong and will never do it again. Respectfully, please unblock me.

I know, in the past, I have made disruptive edits and I know now what constiutes vandalism. I also understand now how to properly communicate through my Talk Page. I will consider my edits more carefully and think before I make them. That is why I am respectfully requesting to be unblocked.

Thank you very much for unblocking me. I do have one question. When can the pink box be removed so I can start editing again?Cw6165 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I did unblock you but sometimes there is another step to take. I've done that, you should be able to edit now. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more suggestions
Hey CW, here are some more ideas from me. My opinion doesn't signify much, because I can't unblock you, but I have seen some people in similar situations so I know - very roughly - what is being looked for.

It's great that you have shown on this talk page that you can use edit summaries. But while showing this, you also forgot how to use your signature (four tildes) at the end of each comment that you make on a talk page. Try not to forget this!

You have also been asked about your past mistakes and if you are now willing to follow Wikipedia policies. In particular, you might want to say what you understand the Wikipedia policy about requiring verifiable independent sources, to mean. Can you think of an example of a mistake you made with this in the past, and just an idea of how you would do it differently in the future?

Also, Anthony made four separate requirements (above) for you to be unblocked. You need to look at each of the four requirements - he numbered them from (1) through to (4) - and decide if you understand it properly. Don't worry if you need some more help to understand one of them - just let us know here! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the rquirements 1 through 4 and I understand them. I understand about using reputable sources so as not to disrupt the flow of the artice. I definitely understand about reading my talk page and responding in kind. The edit summary thing? I definitely understand that and I understand about puting my comments at the end of the page so that people can see them. The Matt Holliday edit is a good example of some of the mistakes I've made in the past. The newspaper I citied does back up the point about the nickname, but nothing else. I could still use that as a source and just mention the fact that he has the nickname and nothing else. if there's something else that I'm just not puting my finger on, please, tell me what it is. If you don't want me using Wikipedia ever agin, please, tell me. Respectfully, please unblock me.Cw6165 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at requirements 1 through 4. I am aware of what I have done and I respectfully request to be unblocked.Cw6165 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock appeal on IRC
For the record: Cw6165 was in the unblock channel on IRC just now and wanted another review of his block. I took a look at the situation and, based on that overview and our conversation, the main problem Cw6165 is facing is a severe frustration with how Wikipedia works. He (?) never got the concept of talk pages, or several other policies, and when confronted with warnings didn't really know what to do. The frustration with dealing with those problems further complicated understanding, and so things spiraled to the point of this block. From our discussion, he does seem to have a genuine interest in learning from these mistakes, but is having difficulty doing so due to the complexity that is Wikipedia. I am proposing the following conditions for Cw6165's unblocking, which he has agreed to: This is all, of course, pending approval from Dougweller as the blocking administrator, but I believe these three conditions should (in time) address all of the concerns that led to this block and can get him back to editing without incident. I'll link Doug and Shearonink to this section, and provide a log of our IRC conversation to both via email (permissible, since we were in the unblock channel).
 * 1) Cw6165 keeps a positive attitude about his own abilities to contribute to this site (which I believe will help with adjusting to the expectations of the community).
 * 2) Cw6165 will take part in a mentorship. Currently, User:Shearonink has offered to take on the role of mentor.
 * 3) Cw6165 will commit to improving his efforts at communicating with other editors through talk pages, edit summaries, and other relevant forums.

In the meantime, cw6516, here's what I want you to work on: If you have any questions, come visit us in the #wikipedia-en-help channel again; whoever is there will do their best to answer your question. Best of luck, and we'll keep you updated regarding the block. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Get in touch with Shearonink about how to proceed with the mentorship stuff. You won't be able to edit their talk page while blocked, but you can email them by clicking here --> Special:Emailuser/Shearonink and filling out the form. If you get an error message, go here first --> Special:Preferences and enter your email address at the bottom of that page.
 * Review some of our guidelines, which should help to start explaining some of the issues you've been having: Talk pages, consensus, providing sources
 * Go sit down for a while, get away from Wikipedia, and relax. Blocks can be very frustrating, and it's difficult to learn new things when very frustrated. Take some time off for yourself and come back when your mind is clearer.
 * Remember that your help is appreciated, and this block is not a punishment, but instead a means to address problems you've been having. Once those problems get addressed, everything will be fine.

Unblocked
I've unblocked you and in the section for reason I've written "good faith editor who just hadn't grasped how we work and now does". I'm sorry this has been so frustrating for you but hope that the plan that's been put together will make sure you avoid the problems you've had in the past. Before I forget, there is nothing wrong with your blanking your page - deleting everything, so that you don't have to look at it every time you look at your talk page. The past is past and from the discussion not just above but on the unblock channel I think you will be a useful and constructive editor. I'm impressed by your actually managing to get and use irc this way. Although I don't have time to mentor you, you can always contact me on my talk page if you want some advice. Dougweller (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for unblocking me. I have one question, though. When does the pink box get removed so I can start editing again?Cw6165 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just edited the article on First Kid. One of the cast members was listed twice. So, I removed one listing.Cw6165 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a great start. Finding errors in already-published articles, like that actor's name being repeated twice or perhaps correcting mistakes in grammar or punctuation, is one of the best ways to learn your way around Wikipedia.  I see that you've also edited Matt Holiday.  You did a pretty good job there, sourcing your edit.  Normally forum-postings are not considered a reliable source, but in this case you are documenting fan behavior on a major-league forum so I think it's ok.  (I'm sure someone will come along to tell us if we're mistaken!)  Also wanted to let you know that I have moved your sourced material to under the 2011 heading, it seemed to fit better in that section than under 'Personal'.


 * People tend to mistakenly think that complete articles have to be written! Edit-counts have to be amassed!  Rights have to be gotten!  Point of view has to be pushed!  But what Wikipedia really needs are editors who are bold and yet also careful both with the material they're working on and with following the editing and behavioral guidelines...like what you're starting to do now.  You added information to the Holiday article and you sourced it, you fixed a mistake on another article...that's really good.


 * You might have forgotten about something I asked you to try a while back so I'm going to repeat it here:
 * Please go to User:Cw6165/Sandbox and post that list of 5 things to avoid & also your list of 5 things to be careful about from Your first article. Also post in your sandbox any concept from the Tutorial and maybe even something from Referencing for beginners.  Experiment with various layouts & make your 'worksheet' look like an article.  When you're satisfied with this latest homework, save it.  Then please come back here and update that you've done so.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edited the Matt Holliday artice again. Changed one of the "C's" in "Cardinals to a capital "C".19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I am your Mentor from IRC. I think it is best to communicate through your talkpage instead of e-mail.

So, here is your homework... I think that you maybe need to go back to basics. You said in IRC that you're having issues with some things that others seem to find to be easier, so this will all re-start slowly and you can see how things are going, if your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies and coding has improved. 1)You get to read. (Boring, I know, but reading is one of the building-blocks for Wikipedia) 2)You get to study. (Study? YUCK, I have to STUDY?)  Well, yes, you *do*...every activity in life that deserves to be done well, deserves some study. I notice that you seem to edit a lot of baseball articles...even Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle had to learn. 3)You will then play in your sandbox. (What...I hear you say...I HAVE A SANDBOX?!) Yes, every Wikipedia editor has a sandbox space, you just need to find it. 4)You have to make me a promise...for the time being, no matter how much you want to edit an article, no matter how much you think you know something, please do not edit anything until you've studied and read and played in your sandbox for the next little while...maybe for just a week, I don't know, but it all just depends on how things go. Rome wasn't built in a day (as the saying goes).

Your first assignment?

When you've finished reading the 'your first article' (which, by the way, I really like...it sets stuff out simply so even I can understand it), here comes one of my favorites...
 * Click on this -->> Tutorial and go through all the steps. Study up on the various guidelines, hints and tips.  Think about *why* Wikipedia has these rules.
 * Then, read the entire (yes, I mean it) Your first article. List all the "things to avoid" and five "things to be careful about" here on your talkpage.
 * Referencing for beginners...a classic, simple and easy-to-understand. Read it...*really*.

Now, go to your own sandbox that I've set up for you, it's located at User:Cw6165/Sandbox. There's a message waiting for you there.

And when you have done all this, please post here on your talkpage. Cheers and happy learning. Shearonink (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I read all that stuff.Cw6165 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

First...thanks for signing with the four tildes, I know it's sometimes hard to remember to do so when when replying to a post. Also, please put a : when you're replying to a comment, that way your response will be indented and that makes it easier to keep the various subjects organized on the page. I have taken the liberty of doing so before your 'I read all that stuff' post above.

It's great you read all that stuff! Now you need to list the things to avoid and the things to be careful about. These concepts are really really important, that's why you need to keep them in mind as you edit content on Wikipedia, knowing them a little better will help keep you out of any editorial quicksand. Soooooo, how about this...
 * Go to User:Cw6165/Sandbox and post the list of 5 things to avoid & your list of 5 things to be careful about from Your first article. Also post your favorite concept/s from Tutorial in your sandbox and maybe from Referencing for beginners as well.  Experiment with various layouts & make it look like an article.  When you're satisfied with your quasi-article, save it and then come back here and update that you've done so.  Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edited the Matt Holliday article again complete with correct source citations and proper examples.Cw6165 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh that was you? I thought it was just an IP-editor...you weren't signed in as Cw6165 (but it's great that you fixed the capitalization of Cardinals).  Let me know when you're able to get around to your "sandbox-article".  Maybe you could kind of think of it as "the things I wish I knew when I started editing"...   Also, please try to remember to indent when you're posting a response on a talkpage, all you need to do is put  :  before your reply.  --Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking in
Hey there, Cw - I'm back from vacation now, and wanted to check in to see how things were going with you. I noticed you haven't edited in a while, is everything ok? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made some edits and, I might add, whithout incident. Everything is b-e-a-utiful. :)Cw6165 (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Good to hear things are going well, I'd noticed you were doing much better with the edit summaries. Keep up the good work! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I see you've been doing some editing some recently, the edit summaries and sourcing all look pretty good. Please don't forget to work on your sandbox article, as your mentor that's mainly what I want you to focus on for the next little while. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary?
You didn't leave an edit summary so it is hard for me to know why you did this. Care to explain? --John (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Just simply forgot. I'll put it in now. Sorry.Cw6165 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Droopy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jungle 2 Jungle. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hot Tub Time Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Morris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bermuda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Farrell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Kept trying to fill out the Edit Summary Section, but my computer was acting funny.

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inclusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Zoey 101, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

````remove it. Don't remove it. I don't really care.````

Mere mentions
Please do not restore the mere mention of the Woolworth Building in Singin' in the Rain. We do not put mere mentions in popcult sections. From WP:POPCULTURE: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Cw6165 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Corrected mistake on 6 March. Meant to use Equestrianism.Cw6165 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Dallas episodes
Please stop adding information about cameos to the short summaries on the List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes page. Though these people have made brief appearances in the episodes, cameos themselves are a trivial matter. WP:TRIVIA is pretty clear about not including trivial items anywhere on the site. Since these cameos do not increase our understanding of the plot (indeed you haven't even folded them into the actual narrative, rather just tacked them on at the end) it is inappropriate to include them. You have already violated the three revert rule, forcing me to do the same, and you are in danger of starting an edit war. Cameo information can be added to specific episode articles if they are created, otherwise they are not noteworthy enough to be included and even if they were, it would not be appropriate to use your formatting as the short summary sections are for plot information only, not episode trivia or production notes. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Dallas episodes
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, 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.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your continued restoration of the "John Ross made out with Emma" is sensational, and as it is written is against the policies/guidelines/best practices of Wikipedia. I have now removed this blurb 3 times, explaining in the edit summary why. I have made my case on the talk page of the article. You on the other hand have not explained why the subplot of a subplot needs to be on the overall summary. Per "Bold, Revert, Discuss" when you are reverted you are expected to take your case to the talk page rather than willfully repeating the same actions and expecting a different result. Should you restore this again I will inquire with the appropriate dispute resolution venues (Edit Warring Noticeboard, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Third Opinion) to help resolve this issue. Please consider wisely as you have recently been warned prior to this statement about edit warring and would present a compelling argument for and administrator to take action. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Cw6165 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Never meant to engage in an edit war. Sorry.Cw6165 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I see where you're coming from on the sensationalism.Cw6165 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:St. Louis Cardinals 20000th Game
If you look at Baseball Reference.com, you see that the 20000th game actually occurs Opening Day against the D'Backs.Cw6165 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Cardinals are listed as having played 19999 games HEADING INTO the 2013 Season, which means that the 20000th game in franchise history will occur April 1, 2013 in Arizona NOT September 19 in Colorado as previously stated in the St. Louis Cardinals article. Yes, there are 19,847 games listed in the team's won-lost record. However, there were some games that ended in ties. They DO NOT count in the won-lost record, BUT they DO count as having been played and in players' season and career statistics. Cw6165 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Slight mistake in my math. It's 19847 NOT 19787. :) I'm NOT trying to start or engage in an editing war.Cw6165 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot. Four tildes. :)Cw6165 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lesser Prairie Chicken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southfork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southfork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luis Tiant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuban. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battles of Saratoga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Knight. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mel's Diner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chili. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pearl Slaghoople, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinoff. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of The Flintstones episodes. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jungle 2 Jungle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smart aleck ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jungle_2_Jungle check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jungle_2_Jungle?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)