User talk:GuyIncognito

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Heyo, Steve Caruso here :-) Would you be willing to help out our friend HappyApple with his AMA request? He's been very detailed with his report and what he needs help with. Peace! אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey there, it looks like someone else got there first :)
 * --GuyIncognito 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Roy Rivenburg, a reporter who was sued in 2001 for defamation by a now-deceased man named Michel Thomas, insists on imposing his controversial views of Mr. Thomas's life in his edits to the Wikipedia article about Mr. Thomas. Can the article be declared NPOV, or can Mr. Rivenburg be barred from further edits? Surely Mr. Rivenburg is hardly a neutral party, given the history of his relationship with Mr. Thomas.--Facts@mt.org 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ill check it out
 * --GuyIncognito 11:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again. Someone substantially shortened the article, taking out all the disputatious material inserted by the accused defamer Rivenburg -- and supported only by him -- and within a couple of days Rivenburger reverted the article back to his version of the facts.

Advocate for Elvis Presley Article
Hi,

Relatively new Wikipedian with limited experience. I have found myself, however, locked in a rather messy situation involving the Elvis Presley article. One particular user, Onefortyone has utterly destroyed the page with innuendo and hearsay. He has innundated the talk pages of Admin Nicholas Turnbull and Hoary. This has been a long-time, ongoing issue that has often times turned personal. Any help would be appreciated as would any advice you may have. Thank you. --Lochdale 04:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nun
Because of your comments on the topic on Nun, I thought you might be interested to know that there is a Request for Comment including the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in that article. Goldfritha 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Advocate for Satanism article
You're the first member of AMA who is both available and interested in religion. Lucky you, huh? :) There is currently a bit of an edit war on the above page, with some individuals seeking to turn it into a page on the Church of Satan and others seeking to make it a bit more general regarding Satanism in general. Any assistance you might be able to give to help solve this matter would be very gratefully appreciated. Thanks for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Neutral Editing in Long-standing Edit War re: Michel Thomas
I thought you might take an interest in the prolonged edit war that has gone on there, coming up on three years, between Roy Rivenburg, the LA Times humor columnist whom Thomas sued for defamation when he was 87 years old, and other editors including myself, who have fought a long battle to insure that the (in our view, phony) controversies Rivenburg created in his 2001 profile of Thomas are not perpetuated.

I have stayed my own hand from editing the article for some time, as it simply provokes Rivenburg to instantly undo any changes I make. However, I would like others who have edited the article over the years, who seem to have a neutral POV, take a stab at resolving the edit war.

Your attention to the article would be welcomed from this corner.

Regards,

"facts@mt.org" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts@mt.org (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Colm O'Gorman neutrality/factuality dispute
Hi there! I've just started editing the Colm O'Gorman article and noticed that you had added a dispute tag. There doesn't seem to be any discussion on the talk page and I was wondering if you could describe what the problems are so I can try to fix them.

Cheers, Conor (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Crimen
Hello, please see a longer reply to your proposal in the talk page. I agree that the article should not contain judgemental statements and that interpretations should be left to expert's quotations. However a translation is not an interpretation or a judgement and when both languages are reported it is open to the motivated corrections by any of the many wikipedians fluent in both languages. This is the reason why your final comment on the US Constitution doesn't really apply to this case. I also agree that some statements about the content of the document may appear vague and maybe should be completed by an exact reference to the paragraph of the document, where that specific point is treated. Pinea (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder to self
The Wikipedia article for userboxes is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_boxes

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:37, 24 July 2009 (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) 20:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery