User talk:NovaGrad70

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Palguta (Rhinos).jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Steal edited-1.jpg. The copy called Image:Steal edited-1.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Palguta-Rhinos.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Palguta-Rhinos.jpg. 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. 15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott Palguta
Can I ask you why you persist in reverting the good-faith changes I made to the Scott Palguta article with no rationale?

The changes I made to the article are improvements and are intended to bring the article up to standard. The change from one infobox to the other is part of the on-going article improvement activity by WP:FOOTY to standardize player articles, and improve accessibility. Also, using flags in the infobox in the way you have is a violation of the Wikipedia policies on flag use at WP:FOOTY and WP:MOSFLAG. The other changes are improvements to grammar and layout which bring the article up to the standards of other articles on American soccer players, and maintain a consistent layout with other MLS professionals.

I would be very grateful if you didn't revert the changes again, especially the ones which relate to clear violations of wikipedia formatting policy, and provide a valid reason for any changes you make in the edit summary. Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I take GREAT exception to being accused of malicious editing. My intent in making the changes to this article BETTER, in accordance with WP policies, and if you look at my edit history you will see that I have a vested interest in ALL WP soccer articles, not ones which relate simply to Scott Palguta. Please do not revert the changes to the standard infobox again or I will report you for violations of the three edit rule WP:3RR. Thank you. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't add a text like "==== REQUEST FULL PROTECTION FROM MALICIOUS EDITS ====" on the top of articles, especially when (as pointed out above) there are no malicious edits going on... Stop your disruptive editing. chandler · 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott Palguta
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Peanut4 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

March 2009
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. If you continue to revert good faith edits from other users with no valid reason, you are at risk of being blocked from editing. Eastlygod (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk
Hello Old Fruit. Permit me to assure you that if you continue reverting without discussing, I will block you. Talk:Scott Palguta exists; please use it. You're not the only offender on this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)