User talk:Miracleimpulse

License tagging for Image:Sweetest Day Founder - R T Fuller.JPEG
Thanks for uploading Image:Sweetest Day Founder - R T Fuller.JPEG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Sweetest Day Founder J J Wilsdon.JPEG
Thanks for uploading Image:Sweetest Day Founder J J Wilsdon.JPEG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

userfying article per Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax
Hi, I have moved The Sweetest Day Hoax to User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax as per Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax. --- Deville (Talk) 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day
Sorry, but a wholesale replacement of the current article with a text dump of your version isn't going to be an acceptible course of action here. There are numerous problems with your version, notably the fact that it is heavily original research. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You need to use the article talk page to discuss changes.--Isotope23 12:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Isotope, your claim of original research on my part is ridiculous:

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Going to a local library and reading microfilm hardly constitutes original research. And none of my statements regarding Sweetest Day can be interpreted as novel narrative or historical interpretation. Everyone already knows Sweetest Day is a fraud, a fake, a ploy, a commercial holiday.

Please stop removing sourced factual information from the Sweetest Day article. Miracleimpulse 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm tired of explaining things to you multiple times... if you don't see how creating an inference from sourced material is original research, then nothing I'm going to say here is going to make it any clearer.
 * Bottom line, if you have a problem with the current version of the article, take it to Requests for comment. If you have a problem with me, take it to Requests for mediation--Isotope23 13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Please be aware that you are responsible for knowing and abiding by WP:POINT, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". Inserting plainly excessive numbers of citation needed templates, even for information that would be trivial for you yourself to verify and cite (such as that Sweetest Day is celebrated on the third Saturday in October), is disruptive behavior.

And to forestall misunderstandings, "the point really needed to be made" is not a defense for violations of WP:POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Feldspar, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for commercial purposes. The sources you are citing for factual information on Sweetest Day (such as Retail Confectioners International) are advertisements for Sweetest Day intended to sell candy and promote the holiday.  Promotional Industry Spam is unacceptable as a source for information on a Wikipedia article. Please properly source the statements or remove them, and stop removing the factual sourced information from the Sweetest Day article. This only makes you look like an industry spindoctor. Miracleimpulse 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of spamming
Accusing good faith contributors of being "industry spammers" as you did here is not only a violation of Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith, but also a violation of its policy on personal attacks. Don't do it again. Captainktainer * Talk 02:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for posting on my talk page Captain, where I will tell you my honest opinion: In my opinion, you and Isotope and Feldspar and Transfinite and others are doing damage control for industry regarding Sweetest Day. Please stop removing neutral sourced factual information from the Sweetest Day article. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Sweetest Day. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Guy 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead. You have been blocked for 24 hours, please take this time to calm down, read this little homily and think of a less disruptive way to proceed. Guy 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You've now been blocked for 48 hours for further disruption. Your claims of an industry conspiricy and your constant attempts to add a giant essay of your own writing to Sweetest Day despite clear consensus against you are doing nothing to help this site. --InShaneee 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"This article was nominated for deletion..."
Those only go on the talk pages. Putting it on the article for Sweetest Day is disruptive. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the talk page seemed inappropriate. The talk page was not nominated for deletion. The Sweetest Day page was. Miracleimpulse 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is where that message goes, though. It refers to the article, and it should never go on the article. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "This article was nominated for deletion . The result of the discussion was Keep."
 * To be precise with a little emphasis. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever hahahaha Thanks for showing me how to write  Big   Miracleimpulse 22:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is already consensus against the changes you are making on Sweetest Day. Stop now or you will simply be blocked again for longer. --InShaneee 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the process description here. Note item #5: "...and put a link to the discussion sub-page on the article's talk page (the template oldafdfull is recommended for this..." (emphasis added). Please do not add this template to the article itself. Not a dog 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing
Hi Miracleimpulse. I wanted to offer to edit User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax for you to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. Please let me know if you would be interested. — Reinyday, 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind offer Reinyday. I accept. Admittedly I am very new to Wikipedia and am learning as I go. In my opinion, this will eventually become the most comprehensive and definitive Sweetest Day article anywhere. Contrary to what many may think, I am not anti-Sweetest Day. I simply believe Americans have a right to know the real history of what they are celebrating when it comes to holidays. The Herbert Birch Kingston Story of the origins of Sweetest Day is a verisimilitude, meaning it is very similar to the truth but not the exact truth at all. In fact, the dissemination of this story by Hallmark, American Greetings, Retail Confectioners International and countless other promoters of Sweetest Day is a form of mass deception and market manipulation. It has been going on for 85 years and has resulted in billions of dollars in revenues for these companies. But at what cost? America pays the cost of Sweetest Day in credibility, a trend which must be reversed if we are ever to win the hearts and minds of the world again.

Please allow all images to remain in the article (unless they do not comply with Wikipedia standards). More will be uploaded soon! Also, please do not add any of the verisimilitudes currently used in the promotion of Sweetest Day unless they are characterized as such. Thank you again Reinyday! Robb Miracleimpulse 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day Hoax
Hi,

I'll be honest, Miracleimpulse. While I don't doubt your good-faith, I do wonder about your interest in this topic. This sentence of yours, for example, -- "America pays the cost of Sweetest Day in credibility, a trend which must be reversed if we are ever to win the hearts and minds of the world again" -- causes me to wonder if you are completely serious in your desire to write this thing. At the least, you'll need to reconsider your "writer's voice" profoundly before writing on this subject again. Wikipedia's articles may contain criticism of their subjects, but they must be dispassionate and neutral in their tone; and well-rounded, presenting all sides of a question. Your writing to this point has been fairly far off the mark. Wikipedia is not the place to "expose conspiracies," and your hyperbole is out of place.

I believe it would be best if you begin the article from scratch, with help from Reinyday. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jimmy Celebrates "Sweetest Day".JPEG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jimmy Celebrates "Sweetest Day".JPEG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment actually, the license on the image is wrong... you should go back and tag all your the "Cleveland Plains Dealer" images you've uploaded with as these would be in the public domain now. --Isotope23 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * scratch that... the image is new... just the article is not. To be honest I don't know if  applies in that case if it is a scan that you made of an article that is in the public domain.  You might want to ask someone about that though.  It is possible all your images are public domain and not fair use.--Isotope23 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and after some research it would appear that a scan of a public domain work (which a newspaper article published before '23 would be) is in and of itself in the public domain as a derivative work... so I think it might be benficial for you to retag the images you've uploaded (and if you need confirmation of this, just google "public domain scans").--Isotope23 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

72 hour block
You have been blocked for 72 hours for violating WP:NPA. In addition, the claim you have been asserting that Hallmark and American Greetings are the same company is unverified original research that lacks reliable sources, and as such constitutes disruption. Be aware that continued disruption could lead to topic bans or an indefinite block.  Durova  01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DeKlyn's Chocolates - 1922.JPEG)
Thanks for uploading Image:DeKlyn's Chocolates - 1922.JPEG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The photo is linked to a collection of photos related to the Sweetest Day article and is connected to the article here (number 11). It is also a Public Domain image. Miracleimpulse 15:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not tagged PD, it's tagged fair use. Like I said in a comment above, you probably want to go through all the images you've uploaded and replace the incorrect fair use tag with a PD tag so you don't have to go through this on ever image that isn't linked in an article.--Isotope23 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing, when you add a hangon tag, please don't remove the deletion message as you did here. The correct thing to do is to add the hangon tag while you explain the rationale, then contact the person who added the tag (or an admin) and ask them to remove the deletion tag.--Isotope23 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Chairman of Cleveland's first Sweetest Day in the Year Committee C. C. Hartzell.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chairman of Cleveland's first Sweetest Day in the Year Committee C. C. Hartzell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

C. C. Hartzell AfD
I've nominated C. C. Hartzell for deletion because the subject does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion of a biographical article (these criteria are at WP:BIO). You can visit the discussion and participate at Articles for deletion/C. C. Hartzell.--Isotope23 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not call other peoples' edits vandalism
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Weregerbil 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:10,000 CHEERED BY CANDY GIFTS.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:10,000 CHEERED BY CANDY GIFTS.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Not a dog 13:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Not a dog 13:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:12 Founders of Sweetest Day 2.JPEG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:12 Founders of Sweetest Day 2.JPEG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Not a dog 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Not a dog 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT in Sweetest Day?
Did you do this drastic edit (and summary) to make a point? Seems like you are frustrated, which is unfortunate, but I think that edit was disruptive. I've reverted it since the previous version had helpful references & citations. Not a dog 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please stop accusing me of being a spin doctor, engaging in vandalism, or that I "edit Wikipedia rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Wikipedia." . If you look at my mainspace edit history, you'll see I've been editing for quite a while, and only edited on Sweetest Day yesterday for the first time. And my substantive edit was to revert what I considered a questionable edit of yours to revert to an non-sourced eariler version of hte article. I don't really care about this article other than ensuring it meets encyclopedic standards. I have no connection to this Day or the candy industry. Please assume good faith and refrain from unfounded personal attacks. Not a dog 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi Miracleimpulse, I just thought I'd drop you a note regarding your behaviour on the Sweetest Day article. Looking through the history of your objection it is plainly apparent that the consensus on the article is against you. Using personal attacks and incivility is not an acceptable way of turning the consensus around. If you continue editing in a disruptive manner you will likely end up blocked again. I would urge you to calm down, try and assume good faith and edit in such a way that helps the site. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?
Hi. Since you pointed out this Yahoo forum where you are discussing some of the sweetest day stuff, it appears you have multiple profiles there which you use to post messages: miracle impulse (contribs), the littlest shareholder (contribs), and it isn't rocket science (contribs). Are you using multiple accounts here at Wikipedia as well? It also seems you have a beef with these card companies due to a patent issue. I'm concerned that this is introducing some bias in your editing of related articles. Not a dog 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hangon tag
Please do not add the hangon tag to your images that are for deletion. The hangon tag is for speedy deletion ONLY. Adding it to images not being speedy deleted does nothing but backlog CAT:CSD. Your edits have been reverted. Please do not insert the tag again. — P ilotguy  (push to talk) 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to the Images for deletion page
Please do not flood pages with duplicate statements - you are entitled to put across your view but you should not simply flood the page with it. Saying your opinion once is enough - if you need to add something else later you can. As it stands, the discussion had about 20 or so 'retain' votes - all from you... Remember, it isn't how you say it that counts, it is what you say. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Miracleimpulse, your behaviour is verging on the hysterical and is highly disruptive. It's also pretty much guaranteed to be counter-productive. I recommend you collect all your comments to a single, focused and neutrally worded statement on the IFD page, and leave it at that. In the end, if the consensus is to remove the images, you will need to respect that consensus. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent comments such as this, as well as considering your extensive history of personal attacks and POV pushing concerning this subject: You have now been blocked for one week for disruption. --InShaneee 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Founders image
Hi. I removed the founders image you just added because, quite simply, it was much too large for the scale of the page. If it has value for the article, I suggest using a much smaller version. Not a dog 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * C'mon. Downsize the image first, then insert into the article. Only makes sense, rather than causing everyone's browser window to have to scroll, etc. Common sense, dude. Not a dog 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Divine Plan of the Ages
Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please see WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not for proselytizing. NawlinWiki 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It's preaching. NawlinWiki 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not "an article about it." It's pure preaching like you would get in church. If you can come up with reliable sources for why this particular piece of preaching is notable, go ahead and try. But don't just post the "this is God's plan for the world" commentary. It violates WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to restore the article in its present format. All it included was (1) the image, which is still on WP, and (2) the enormous amount of proselytizing text you added to it. None of that text is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. So -- as I said, if you can find sources establishing that this image is notable, write a (much shorter) article on the order of "This is a notable image, for these reasons." NawlinWiki 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is now a redirect to the author of "The Divine Plan", Charles Taze Russell, which discusses it in detail. There's no reason for the text itself to be a separate article. If it is public domain, you might consider posting it on Wikisource. NawlinWiki 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion here: Image talk:The Chart of the Ages.jpg. What is the source of this particular scanned image? Not a dog 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:The_Chart_of_the_Ages.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:The_Chart_of_the_Ages.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Not a dog 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Noticed you noted you received permission from the copyright holder. Just want to be sure you used one of the methods at WP:COPYREQ to make sure they granted permission for this under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (in the meantime, I changed the license tag on the image) Not a dog 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that. --Not a dog 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Novus Ordo Seclorum.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Novus Ordo Seclorum.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Not a dog 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Not a dog 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Build consensus, don't edit war
Please do not persist in inserting images into Sweetest Day that current consensus clearly does not support, as you did here. Feel free to attempt to make an argument and build consensus on the talk page. However, statements like "you guys better brace yourselves" are unhelpful to your efforts. Not a dog 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with what is meant by consensus here? Please stop just blindly adding galleries of images. You'll just get yourself blocked again. --Not a dog 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to stop
Your images have been removed, for good reasons per a valid debate. That's an end of it. Your accusations per the coment I removed do nobody any favours, especially yourself. The time has come to calm down or most likely face an ever-increasing series of blocks for disruption. Please take this as a warning. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Meisterchef?
Hi. Your vocal reappearance seems to conincide with a single comment by. By any chance are you one and the same person? Not a dog 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I am not . Talk about biting the newcomers. Wow. Miracleimpulse 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/miracleimpulse for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Ryanaxp 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my accusation against you, miracleimpulse, albeit without any diminishment in my suspicion of shenanigans on your part. Nonetheless, I hope this withdrawal contributes to reducing, by at least some degree, the acrimony that has dogged the relevant article for the past year. —Ryanaxp 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day
Please don't start this again. Not a dog 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * and might I add, trying to slide in an unsourced POV wording change along with the infobox removal is exactly the sort of editing that has gotten you in trouble in the past. Please stop being disruptive.--Isotope23 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Sweetest Day/Comments
Hi. I've moved your comment on Talk:Sweetest Day/Comments to Talk:Sweetest Day. That is the appropriate place to discuss an article. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hallmark holiday
Seems you found a new target for your pov-pushing at Hallmark holiday. Please stop. Discuss and build consensus if you want your opinions to be added to articles. Not a dog 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From your userpage
I reverted your userpage after an IP blanked it and left the below comment. I don't think this was your IP and I suspected vandalism, so I changed it back. If this was actually you editing from an IP, apologies for reverting it.--Isotope23 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from IP
I appologize for my excessive vandalism. I love Hallmark and all Hallmark holidays, especially Sweetest Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.74.44 (talk • contribs)

Sweetest Day 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Not a dog 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes at Sweetest Day
I'd just like to say that I'm glad you've taken the route of suggesting potentially controversial changes at Sweetest Day on its talk page rather then just making them yourself. Not a dog 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I made these suggestions on the Sweetest Day talk page months ago and they were ignored. Stop pretending to be nice not a dog. Miracleimpulse 16:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't aware of those suggestions in October (I first noticed Sweetest Day issues in late November]). And please assume good faith and don't insult my intentions. Not a dog 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding discussion at WP:CN
I have closed the discussion at the community noticeboard and wanted you to know the outcome there. Thanks, Navou   banter  /  contribs  00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As clarification, here's the stipulations of the CN decision:
 * You may not edit articles related to Sweetest Day, American Greetings, or Hallmark Cards (that is, those articles plus anything linked from them, and any products or franchises of those companies)
 * You are strongly cautioned to maintain a neutral point of view and to refrain from personal attacks.


 * Failure to abide by the decision will result in a block, community ban, or referral to the Arbitration Committee. --Core desat  02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a fair interpretation and my interpretation of the consensus as the uninvolved closer of the discussion. I would encourage you to look at other interests you might be able to add to other articles adhering to our guidelines and such. This is not an attack on you, just what the community has determined is best for the encyclopedia and those articles. Navou  banter  /  contribs  03:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also on another note I am including a welcome template below for your quick reference around the project. If you have any questions, please let me know.  Navou   banter  /  contribs  04:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Joyce C Hall.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Joyce C Hall.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)