User talk:Gune

One Piece Attacks
Okay let me give you a history lesson here. We DID have an attacks page on wikipedia. It was put up for deletation one day when we put others up. Whenever our pages get a deletation order on one page we end up with a dozen others like it, but thatsnot important.

IT started out we had attacks on character pages, however they looked scruffy there. They were not encyclopedic and we were forced into ditching them. Others wanted them kept so they had their own page. It was put up for deletation... Someone some were miffed about at the time. We had it put up after putting another page up for deletation (the person who sent it AfD decided to put some of our other pages for deletation to when we didn't want them done). We sent one week arguing over and over again with the greater wikipedia community about its importance... It was entirly useless everyone was against us, we even had it compared to a defunc list of dead porn stars at one point!

So we lost the page despite all our efforts. Bottom line was we were not allowed to have it. We do have the details elsewhere: here

Otherwise please stop saying we need them. We've already been down this path several months back. The greater wikipedia coummunity has more say then a handful of One Piece fans. They decided we didn't need the page, not us, we can't argue otherwise. We'd break the rules now doing so. If you create a page like that, we also got to put it up for deletation. Angel Emfrbl 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning
You recently deleted large amounts of discussion on the One Piece discussion pages and replaced it with your own... So:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Come on... You should know better then this! Or at least fix the problem. Angel Emfrbl 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I already said it was an accident and apologized. So whatever. There was no point and need to do this. Gune 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it was an accident or not, templates should not be used on established users. People who aren't new can be justifiably annoyed at receiving a message which starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia" and which tells them to "take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." See Don't template the regulars. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sakura's love
She doesn't say ren'ai as I had originally heard. Looking into it closely, in episode 109, I believe Sakura says "Watashi wa… Watashi wa Sasuke-kun ga suki de suki de tamaranai!" It seems to literally mean extreme, unbearable fondness. It seems be be a common, round-about means of expressing some sort of love in Japanese. –Gunslinger47 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One Piece
Just make sure you do the Straw Hats, Red-Haired Pirate, Blackbeard pirates, Whitebeard Pirates Baroque Works and Marines. They are the most important. I think you've got most already Anyone else, well their over and done with... We can do without them for a while. Monday is only tomorrow, so a lot of pics will disappear then. However some have already gone, I noted that Warpol pirates have lost theirs. Trouble is, once their tagged they can be lost any time.

That guy who tagged them is coming back round and retagging a few who haven't have a fair use on them, which suprises me. I was expecting him to be a guy who tags everything and then doesn't care. It suprises me he goes to the hassle most others like him don't bother with. Angel Emfrbl 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Things are slow right now... I don't think they need too much attention. Usually, if you want to help out its best to come round during information overloads (start of new arcs for example or when information is being given out like During Garp's visit in Water 7). Plus we have a steady amount of editors now. I'm almost invisible, having to do very little. I'm actually relieved since at last I'm getting round to other wikipedia articles for once. :)

You're always welcomed to wonder round though. There are always odd tidys to do! ;) Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note
Thatch was named after the real life Blackbeard, its in one of the SBSs for vol.49. It wasn't sourced (my bad). Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a clue... Mentioning the villians defeated as something like "Their place in the world"" over "Their strength", but how... I can't come up with an idea on that. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert Gottfried has been put down as the voice actor of several characters in the FUNimation dub. I've taken notice of its latest placement, from now on whenever I see it on a characters VA section, its coming off. This can't be a fact anymore if he gets puts on any random character. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletionists Strike

 * The guy nominating them is apparently worst (as hard to believe as it may seem) then TTN. We have no chance, TTN gave us half a chance to improve articles... This guy assess the articles and just ups them for deletetion.  Our chances of keeping articles with TTN was 45% this guy only 15%.  :-/  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its times like this that make my wish Justyn was around... At least, we had half a chance to recover with him. TTN pissed too many editors off, and the clock is ticking on several articles.  We have just a couple of days to come up with something.  Trouble is, the terms articles holds all the explas on things from the series.  So far my best bet is the fact trivia isn't a crime and is a minor problem, which is not recommended but not a reason to delete.  But its the other reasons that have me stuck outside of trivia.  Ity isn't just a page of trivia... Its a list of things related to the series that without, no one will be able to 100% understand the series.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely fully aware of this... I prefer the dicussion ones, with this one, its a case of if the mod (or whatever wikipedia calls them) decides its bad, its going. Today I removed a template saying terms page was fringment of copyright of One Piece Online or something... Riiiight. I know for a fact when I edit a file I only take from the manga and anime itself.  If two people read a sentance and copy it from the manga/anime, sure the information is going to be the same, or at least simulaire.  Plus, a fan stie doesn't count as copywrite.  We're talking about sites that carry a copywrite note on them, like a business company, with lawyers and registered logos and stuff like that.  A fansite can't be copyrighted really... In fact, fan sites are infringments OF copyright.  ¬_¬' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well its gone, I tried to save it but forgot "Hold" tags exist. Basically the person who deleted it hasn't actually checked that it voilate the copyright thingy, which we didn't, now I'm arguing to get it back.  Its still going to be AfDed reguardless, but there was no call for a CSD.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was CSD also, which means they can delete it anytime. Often its before anyone can see it to respond which is whjy I don't like CSDs, but I'll live with AfDs.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this guy isn't TTN, he isn't pressurizing me to stand by my guns. I'm going to let this guy put anything up for AfD... I don't think things can continue the way they do.  Had it not been for all the previous problems on wikipedia, I'd be fighting this guy until the end.  But I'm just a anti-vandal and stupid edit editor these days... If we had the host of reglaurs we once had, I'd join in to fight, but so far, its just you and me fighting this guy.  What little chance do we have?  Watching Justyn's efforts against TTN, it takes a long time to look for loop holes to defend these kind of things.


 * TTN was correct - the opening of the wikia should have seen these pages retire completely. Only the random IP adress fans are keeping them alive and half of them don't know how to edit correctly.


 * As you can imagine by my comments, I've long lost the will to defend the pages, its the wikipedia effect, I've been here for over years, long after all the other editors have left. I'm suprised I still check the pages every day.  :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The full story on that site which claimed copyright:

That site has been an annoyance for a while now. The owners was on the wikia (I keep forgetting) and scraped the contents of an entire page claiming we copied them (edit summery: "Keep copying my site!"). This is why I'm not suprised to see them do this here, except this time they've got what they've wanted. At the time, I had been the one who entired most, if not all, of the contents of said page and I can say full well I didn't copy them. Well, the owner of the site is just using common knowledge... Which you can only write one way. You can only say so much on a subject...

Its like saying water is a clear liquid... Yes... Now describe it another way... Water is a transparent fluquid.... And another... It is a colourless substance. In the end, no matter what your still saying its something wet that has no colour. ¬_¬' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is a place, but its been so long since I've done any CSD or AfD stuff I've forgotten where it is. I shamefully hide in the corner on the matter, all I can tell you is that it exists somewhere.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some articles I don't want us to loose... Some like that one aren't such a loss. But I don't know how to fight this guy, I really don't.  I've resulted to just letting him and then sorting it out after he has left.  I'm almost too afriad to edit the OP pages right now as you don't know when your editing will go to waste.  :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay...can y'all at least call me gal already while slamming me back and forth? :P -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, this isn't a hate fest against you Collectonian, we're just discussing possible, if any, ways around the AfDs.


 * Well, Gune and I are big editors on the OP pages, as I said on the list of character page in the merge section, whenever something like this is happens the fandom Vs wikipedia kicks in. Gune and I are two of the few reglaur editors left because most had enough of it and left.  Gune and I just want to make everyone happy, I guess its our fault but you can't please everyone.  To be honest Collectonian, I don't see how we can please everyone this time.  Its just a case of letting wikipedia pages take their course.  I can't fault you for this, its something I've known should have happened a long time ago, after I got over being a wikipedia noob.


 * That said, I'll sit back and try to come up with ways until the very end. But I'm not as creatative as some of our past arguers... And I'm useless with looking for loopholes. Theres been nothing big enough to tick me off this time round, just the CSD on the terms page which was lost for the wrong cause.   Angel Emfrbl (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, see if you can point this out to them and use it as a trumph card. I don't know what else to do, if you can stick by your guns you'll probaberly win.  I don't know what to do, Justyn was our residental debater.  I'll try to get hold of him, but all I can do is leave a note for him to read.  :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry to do this, but your own your own now. I asked Justyn to lend a hand since I'm not any good at this and got accused of canvasing.  Enough is enough.  That was the straw that broke the camels back.  Sorry about this, but that was the last bit of wikipedia hassle I can take. At least at the wikia I won't have my actions misread all the time and I get some work done.  See you around.   Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. ''You need to stop changing this page, and you need to stop now. It is disruptive and against Wikipedia guidelines.'' -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Consensus
When three people disagree with you, you do not continue making the same edit over and over again. Instead, you discuss it on the talk page in an attempt to sway their opinions. ~SnapperTo 03:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairy Tail
A source was provided that showed the names were official. Aside from that, Wikipedia's MOS states the guideline of using English names pretty clearly. -Mr. Toto (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, you keep reverting edits without justifying your reasons. I've already addressed the guidelines of the Naming Conventions, and the names have been changed to what the actual creator says are correct. Please stop doing this. -Mr. Toto (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Marines//Navy//Kaigun
Hello Gune, I'd like to explicitly point you to this former section of the former Navy (One Piece) article and the corresponding talk page thread. Both of these explain, why it is "Navy" in English, "Kaigun" in Japanese and not "Marines". Please stop replacing "Navy" and similar terms with "Marines" and similar terms. Thank you. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Funimation uses Marines. Marines is more accurate than Navy. Only 4Kids used Navy and Viz which never ask the original mangaka about a name. Gune (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right about Funimation using "Marines". I never watched any English dub, so I didn't know. Thanks for clarifying. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reported for breaking 3RR
As you have broken the Three-revert rule on the pages Sanji, Nami (One Piece), Tony Tony Chopper, Nico Robin, and Roronoa Zoro, I have reported you at the Administrators' noticeboard for the 3RR. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Find another group image if you want those characters displayed, but do not continue attempting to add individual images. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Those images are excessive per WP:NFCC, and not appropriate. The group image is sufficient. Continued attempts to place the images into the article will be construed as disruptive editing, and you may be blocked for edit warring. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Hello. I have blocked you from editing for 72 hours for the following reasons: Additionally, you may wish to familiarise yourself with the policies on non-free content and image use.
 * Violation of the three-revert-rule at List of Fairy Tail members.
 * Incivility: and

If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

CIreland (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing
Please justify this reversion at the talk page thread here. Thanks.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''You have still not provided a valid reason to revert my cleanup. Navboxes are intended as interarticle navigational aids; having a million section links between two articles doesn't help anyone and only serves to bloat the navbox.'' 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 09:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Detroit Metal City
Good evening! Hope the weather's as good there as it is here. We seem to be talking past each other when it comes to the DMC article. I think it's a farce, you wrote that "it's not the genre." Why not? Isn't the definition of farce that we use, and which seems to capture the generally understood sense of the word, applicable to DMC without controversy or the requirement of specialist knowledge to tell? --Kiz o r  17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
If you'll leave edit summaries, people are less likely to wonder about and revert unexplained edits like this one that don't seem to have any point. Was there a point? --CliffC (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Captain Falcon
A couple of editors don't seem to like that we want Captain Falcon to have his own Wikipedia article. So I reverted it back to what it was when it was listed as a good article. They may still want to boot it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They do want to delete it. Comment on that here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nobody takes IP's serious."
I would advise you to refrain from making claims like you did in your edit summary here - most "good" edits on Wikipedia not done by bots actually come from IP addresses, and there are several IPs who have been regular contributors for years and are well-regarded by the community.

In addition, I would strongly urge you to stop edit-warring with the IP on Sgt. Frog; if you keep it up, you will both be blocked for a short while (I could have done it before, but chose only to protect the article in the hopes it would make you both slow down and come to an agreement on the talk page). 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Di'Anno
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Note that Paul Di'Anno remained active in music well beyond 1981; your change to the infobox was therefore erroneous. Dl2000 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Dl2000 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kitsune fancruft
Please see WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These kind of in popular culture sections are frowned upon, and I am simply following policy. Please stop reverting without an explanation; it is not helpful. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake
My apologies, I thought that you had initiated the genre change at Tool (band). I now see that the IP editor was the first to change it and that you were just putting it back the way it was. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Killswitch Engage. 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.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(Killswitch Engage) — Excuse me?
In this edit I moved the sources into a proper section; I did not delete them, WP:LEAD states that sources are not intended to be in the lead. Furthermore all those sources themselves are unreliable, so saying to me "stop being a vandal" wasn't the only dick move I've seen you make so far; I've also far caught you making inapropriate edit summaries, making attacks, provoking edit wars as well as rampantly assuming bad faith (and as a side note, I suggest you read the section above this one). • GunMetal Angel  02:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Corn vs. Maize
You are one of several editors who have indicated concern with the fact that when a person wants the article on Corn, they will have trouble finding what they want, because they are not sent to the article on the grain that most of the English-speaking world calls "corn". Furthermore, the disambiguation page to which they are sent has not appeared helpful. I recently changed the wording on the dab page in question, and would like your input whether or not the present version reduces the problem to an acceptable level.

Full disclosure: I was one who once fought hard for Maize to be moved to Corn, but I didn't get my way. So now I just want to make it better. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Fighting Spirit (manga). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

February 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on America Hoffman. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Smjg (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

January 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Takoyaki. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ANN's Encyclopedia
Before you go on restoring citations to ANN's Encyclopedia, please read over ANN's entry at WP:A&M/ORS and the discussion linked form there as well. You will see that ANN's Enyclopedia is not a reliable source and should not be used in any Wikipedia article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

William S. Burroughs
Hi, Gune. I have again removed that paragraph which is unsupported by the citations. And have clarified my position on the talk page should you or anyone else wish to discuss it. I have been unable to find any source which verifies the initial assertion. Please do not restore the text without first providing an independent reliable source. I'm sure you are aware from previous edit warring discussions that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the text, and it can be satisfied only with the inclusion of a reliable source. I'll be happy to discuss any sources with you on the talk page. Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Sodom and Gomorrah
Your edit to Sodom and Gomorrah has been reverted because it reintroduced an unsourced, indescriminate list of WP:POPCRUFT which had been correctly removed over a year ago. Per WP:TRIVIA, lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided, especially if they are completely unsourced.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹  Speak 23:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop reinserting unsourced, popcruft which has been legitimately removed. You've been shown the policy stating it's inappropriate.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹  Speak 01:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crank (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triads. 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) 09:17, 14 August 2014 (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 Senomyx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Grayson. 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) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nostromo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue. 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) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

July 2017
- MrX 00:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC) - MrX 00:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Arrow episodes, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this edit summary, and this one are both incorrect. The episode summaries are NOT the same length as others in the article. Episode summaries should be 100-200 words. As was explained in this episode summary, the episode summary is 216 words, which is too long. if you would like to check for yourself, there is a script that you can use to confirm the lengths of every episode summary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bluebird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sawiskera ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bluebird check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bluebird?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) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Engrish
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Engrish&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 04:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Waid
Hi. Your removal of source-supported content from the Mark Waid article has been reverted by another editor, and I agree with his/her edit.

In the first place, the source cited for the lawsuit in question indeed names the charge in question as "tortious interference", as do two other citations in that section. If you have sources of superior reliability that indicate this is wrong, then we should cite them in the article if we are to remove or edit that passage.

Second, the passage you removed was on how the deposition of Antarctic's publisher confirmed Waid's position on the matter, which does not seem to bear any connection to your dispute of the term tortious interference, and even if it does, that citation also supports that verification. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)