User talk:Ohioana

Copyright problems with File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/x1Xiuz25OY3/Premiere+DreamWorks+Pictures+Number+Four+Arrivals/x1xb2vMa4m5/Jobie+Hughes. As a copyright violation, File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Jobie Hughes Premiere 1.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversions
I actually don't have anything against him. It's just that the previous version is not only out of date, but it's also copyvio. I've sourced everything in the article that I've written, so it's not like it hasn't been said about him or isn't sourced somewhere. There's no agenda here except for ensuring that the article is up to date and includes ALL of the information out there about Hughes that is sourced, not just the stuff that makes him look good. Wikipedia isn't a place where we only include the nice things about people. As far as the novel article goes, that has a complete lack of sources that show notability. You claim that he's had an author review his book? Well, it's not sourced anywhere in the article and since I'd only been able to find two sources for the book, I redirected it to the author's page. We need multiple sources that are backed up in independent and reliable sources to show notability for the book, which don't seem to be out there. Hughes having worked on a notable series does not extend notability to all of his work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the problems with the sources currently at At Dawn:


 * 1) This is a merchant site. Not only can it not show notability, but it's not even supposed to be used as a trivial source because there's so much conflict of interest.
 * 2) This is the author's website. This is considered to be a primary source and at most, can really only be used to back up trivial things such as book info... and even then only if you have multiple independent and reliable sources to back that up. In other words, the unspoken rule of WP:PRIMARY is that you should have so many other sources that using a primary source is rather redundant and unnecessary.
 * 3) This is a publisher's catalog and is also a primary source that cannot show notability. It falls under WP:PRIMARY. Anything released by the author, his agent, his publisher, or anyone directly involved with him is seen as a primary source.
 * 4) Another merchant page, same issues as using the Amazon link.
 * 5) Author's site, doesn't show notability. It also doesn't actually back up the claims it's sourcing other than Hughes wrestled in high school.
 * 6) This is actually usable as a source, but the problem is that this is really the only usable source currently on the article. This alone wouldn't save the article from deletion. Also the review really wasn't as glowing as it's being represented on the article.
 * 7) The issue of this is that not only is it on the author's page, but it is a fragment of a review. We have no way of knowing exactly what the phrase was in the context of the review in its entirety. Stuff like this  is really never usable as a source unless Brown were to post the entire review on his website or on his blog. Even then... this is just one review, making this two reviews in total. Two reviews is not enough to save an article.
 * The other issue is that everything is pretty much promotional or original research. I've got to ask this... are you Hughes, a friend, or anyone representing him? If you are, you need to be very clear about who you are in relation to the book and the author because this would be seen as a conflict of interest and as promotion. There's no rule against editing if you have a conflict of interest, but it is discouraged for you to do direct editing because it's so hard to remain neutral when you stand to gain (emotionally or financially) from the book being seen in a particular light. The reason I suspect this is because you keep referring to things that aren't really public knowledge and your edits come across as highly promotional.
 * As it stands, this would be far better if it was redirected to the author's article. There's not enough here for it to pass WP:NBOOK. Since you've been fighting the redirect, I'm listing it for AfD. I wish it wouldn't have to be like this, but I'm not getting into a reversion war with you.
 * The other issues concern the copyvio on the Hughes article, among other things. The bio section is not only non-neutral, but it's taken almost word for word from Hughes' brief bio section. Unless you are Hughes himself, you have no legal right to post any of his bio blurb on Wikipedia even partially, and even then it's strongly discouraged outright to use any portion of someone else's words on Wikipedia. As far as what in the article isn't factually true, which part of it was it? You never actually stated it and the only portion that might not be true is what the reporters were stating about there being conflict over the contract... which I never actually stated as something that Hughes confirmed. I stated that the news outlets were reporting on it and that it was a rumor, but never actually confirmed by anyone. We can report on rumors if there's enough news coverage of them and if they are considered to be notable enough. I would also beg to argue that again- unless you are Hughes himself or someone "in the know", you wouldn't actually be able to confirm or deny anything that was said in the articles. If that is the case, that's another reason you need to be honest about your ties to the article. If something isn't true then you can mention as much on the talk pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with other editors
Please be careful in talking to other editors to conform to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Referring to changes that you do not like as "vandalism" is against local policies, which are designed to help editors work collaboratively in an environment that can become heated. Violating these policies may lead to a block of your account. Anyone who edits Wikipedia to any extent is likely to encounter a dispute with another editor. If you disagree with an edit that another makes, you need to discuss that politely with him or her and, if you cannot reach consensus, pursue proper dispute revolution. If you have any questions about this, you're welcome to come by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of At Dawn (novel) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article At Dawn (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/At Dawn (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. The things I've included in the article are reported on in multiple reliable sources known for being reliable. You've given no reason as to why these elements are incorrect other than arguments that essentially boil down to "I don't like it". That is not a valid argument for removal of content.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You're edit warring for no reason other than "I don't like it". To be honest, I see your edits as vandalism as you've only edited the things you dislike for no reason what so ever other than vague claims of it being "incorrect" without ever backing up your claims. It's rather suspicious that the only parts you remove are the parts that aren't overwhelmingly positive towards Hughes and you insist upon constantly re-adding copyvio. You have no reason to revert the edits. Everything is backed up with reliable sources and you've given no reason as to why they are incorrect. You've given me no true rationale at all and you seem particularly bent on removing anything that isn't positive about the author, showing that you seem to have a bit of an agenda going on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jobie Hughes". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring
Hello Ohioana. In your entire career on Wikipedia you have never left a comment on a talk page. We rely on discussion here to resolve disputes. Since the report at WP:AN3 (mentioned above) suggests you've gone over the line, you can expect to be blocked if you won't join in discussions. In particular, you seem to be adding copyrighted material to articles, which is something that we do not tolerate on Wikipedia. Please join at Talk:Jobie Hughes to try to reach a compromise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Your edits are being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The edits which resulted in this block were made by the underlying ip, not this specific account used by the editor. Appeal is to the Arbitration Committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)