User talk:Davidtav

Image:BillSpeidel2.jpg
I don't doubt that it is exactly what you say it is, but you should still cite where you got it from. If it came from a .gov online source, please give the URL. If it came from a book, please give the usual citation information. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked back to this, and I see you never addressed it. We'd really like to move the image to Commons, but can't until this is resolved. - Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! Found it. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/klgo/adhi/images/photo73.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

July 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Back to the Future, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Back to the Future‎. 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. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Back to the Future‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Please stop adding spam links to a site that provides trivia about the movie. Trivia is not encyclopedic information. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello David
Please stop edit warring. Vidtaggr is not a proper external link for a number of reasons. For one, it appears to be a new site with a tiny catalog, so it falls incredibly short of providing (per WP:EL), "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." But more importantly, you being a new user (by contributions; not by registration date), and adding this to numerous pages as basically your only contributions, makes it look, whether true or not, like you are interested in this site in some way and are adding these links to promote. Also from WP:EL's section on links to avoid: "Links mainly intended to promote a website" but there's about twenty other pages I could point you to on why promotion will not be tolerated. It also appears that the tags are public user generated, another no-no. Though you have violated WP:3RR, and you appear to be a user with a conflict of interest, engaged in a spamming campaign, I don't enforce rules blindly. Since you did leave edit summaries asking for explanation, and posted to Sottolacqua's talk page, I am declining the block request for now, though Sottolacqua is absolutely correct that the links do not belong and was right to remove them. Now that you've had an explanation, please desist immediately from further adding these links to any articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello


 * I will accept that the VidTaggr site does not have a large catalog, but the Back to the Future reference is a good reference. Please REVIEW the link to verify (http://vidtaggr.com/taggs.aspx?v=vtd0888571-ab), rather than just removing the reference. This level of Wiki-bullying is un-needed and only serves to drive good followers away.


 * Please RE-ADD the Back to the Future reference. The SPECIFIC reference has a lot of good information that SHOULD NOT be added to the wiki article. If you believe the content from VidTaggr SHOULD be added to the article, please let me know. Otherwise, the reference is a good one. If I do not hear back from you via Talk, I will assume that you have not reviewed the information at http://vidtaggr.com/taggs.aspx?v=vtd0888571-ab and will re-add the link myself.


 * Thanks for your time.


 * Dave (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I hope you don't mind that I have posted your reply above from my talk page—I like to keep conversation in one place so I and anyone else can follow along. A link to Vidtaggr in the external links section is not a reference, nor are any of the other links there. A reference is a citation used to verify content in an article. This is best done using an inline citation (as the article is already sourced through), although a general reference may be used. To indicate that a link is being used as a general reference for the content of an article, it has to be placed in a references section, and of course it has to function as an actual source for the content, not just a source. By placing the link to Vidtaggr in the external links section, you were specifically telling the reader, "this is a separate, outside source of information", i.e., you are specifically not using the link as a reference. In any event, Vidtaggr would not be acceptable as a reference, even if it was being used as such, since Vidtaggr is not considered a reliable source. We require that references that are added to articles be reliable, meaning having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which Vidtaggr does not have. In fact, the blurb for Back to the Future at Vidtaggr is apparently copyright violating plagiarism of this previously published material (another reason why Vitaggr would fail our external links policy). I'm sorry you feel all this is wiki-bullying but it is not. Yes, I am an admin and speaking from that position of power over enforcing our policies, but they are policies, and while you are welcome to seek a second opinion, I think you'll find that you are quite clearly on the wrong end of them. Places where you might request a second opinion include, the help desk, Third opinion and Editor assistance/Requests and it might be good if you did so. By the way, since you seem to feel you are being unfairly targeted, though I simply came here because multiple users had reverted your links and you had been reported to WP:AIV for a block which I declined, do not be surprised if I start a TfD discussion for VidTaggr movie, as I see it as serving no useful purpose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:VidTaggr movie
Template:VidTaggr movie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:VT-logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:VT-logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:InternetInABox.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:InternetInABox.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)