User talk:GregChant

Wow, I cant belive you have been here for over a month and no one ever left a dicussion for you! Well, welcome to Wikipedia, even though this is a little late! Anyways, Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! — M o e   ε  03:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsy Cline
I'm able to help.... --Gold-Horn 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Replying
I understand what you have said, however, I was not the one who wrote the article for Patsy Cline. The only way I have contributed to her article was with images and I created her singles and albums charts. I have also added some trivia. The user who wrote her information was Patsycline's1fan. Please discuss problems with that user, not me. Just because my user name clearly states I adore Patsy Cline doesn't neccessarily mean I wrote all that information on Cline. In a way I am insulted from your remarks. Contact that user on the talk page to discuss problems with the article. I do understand however not to delete the informaton on top. That was a mistake of my wrongdoing. I would prefer a reply as well from you as soon as possible after you have read this message. Thank you. (LovePatsyCline 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Another Reply
If you feel you can do a better job writing Patsy Cline's article, then you write her article yourself. (LovePatsyCline 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:184383406 l.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:184383406 l.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image 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 '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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:184383406 l.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:184383406 l.jpg. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Safia Aoude
In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

CeBIT
CeBIT - I changed it, what do you mean it still reads like an advertisement? Could you be more specific?--Moenni01 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

March 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 Leah McGrath Goodman. 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. Ruby  Murray  16:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Removal of [...] biased, [...] contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is not edit warring. Nevertheless, I had reverted the contentious material exactly 3 times before requesting semi-protection, so your warning was premature and out of line. GregChant (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How was the information "biased" or "poorly sourced"? I know that the page has just come out of semi-protection following a string of IP vandal edits, but the information doesn't seem particularly biased to me. A little re-wording to make it sound less like criticism might be useful, but repeated deletion is unnecessary. Please also note that WP:3RR notes that we're not entitled to 3 reverts - that's just a rule beyond which blocking can be done by admins - and some of your reverts had no edit summary. As far as "out of line" goes, that essay you quote (it's not a policy) also says that recipients should still assume good faith. Thanks,  Ruby   Murray  17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While the fact that Ms. Goodman revealed Satoshi Nakamoto's identity is relevant to her biography, the enumeration of everything that may or may not have been in said reveal are not, and introduce a biased tone (e.g., that she was doxxing). Again, I have been a Wikipedia editor for the better part of a decade: please note that I know 3RR does not imply that we are entitled to 3 reverts. What I am stating that your template warning without discussion was premature and lacked good faith, particularly because I do not believe the reverts violated 3RR nor did I breach the rule even if I am wrong in believing that. In the future, please take care before using such templates. GregChant (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)