User talk:Pudist

License tagging for Image:SOSmall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SOSmall.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 11:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Sisters of Shit.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sisters of Shit.jpg. 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. 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The article Sisters of Shit has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a person or group of persons but it does not indicate how or why that person or group is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sisters of Shit Riga2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sisters of Shit Riga2.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. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sexual-attraction2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sexual-attraction2.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. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sisters of Shit Tallinn.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sisters of Shit Tallinn.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. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sistersofshit36.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sistersofshit36.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. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sisters of Shit Riga3.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sisters of Shit Riga3.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. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sisters_of_Shit2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sisters_of_Shit2.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:SoS_drums.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SoS_drums.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Capablanca's 'unnoticed error'
hi, regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_rank_checkmate, Just to let you know Qb2 is not an error. 29...Qb2! is correct as 30 Rc8? allows 30...Qa1+(or Qb1+) when black loses a rook as 31 Qf1 Qxf1+ 32 Kxf1 Rxc8. ChessCreator (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing it anyway, it's made me read that section of the article and extend it to make it clear. ChessCreator (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of UNG is Not Gnu
A tag has been placed on UNG is Not Gnu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShakingSpirit talk 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of UNG is Not Gnu
A tag has been placed on UNG is Not Gnu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShakingSpirit talk 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

UNG is Not Gnu
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article UNG is Not Gnu, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of UNG is Not Gnu. -- nancy   (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Signing" articles
Never put your signature in an article; nobody is the owner of an article. Also: if there are nothing but rumors on the topic, an article is unlikely to survive. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we are a reference site for information which is verifiable by information contained in publicly available reliable sources. I have proposed that the other rumor article you mentioned be deleted, for the same reason. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question on my web page
I don't understand your question. There is no Own work tag. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

June 2015
Your recent editing history at Alex Jones (radio host) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning re my Talk page
If you post something to my talk page, and I remove it, do not put it back. If you have a problem with the material at Alex Jones (radio host), take it to that article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (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. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider self-reverting, otherwise you will likely be blocked. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Verification / context
You will need to provide an appropriate source. You are linking to a random person's vlog who is apparently illegally hosting a copy of one of Jones' shows. Without being able to establish the provenance of the show to know whether or not it has been doctored, you would need to provide a link to the actual infowars site. And even with the actual verification of Jones's statement, it would not replace the reliable third party analysis, it would only be suitable for modifying the statement to something like "In 200X Jones was noted for stating X about the moon landing conspiracy.(reference) In 201x, he began stating Y about the moon landing conspiracy (primary source reference)." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Red Pen is wrong. While Youtube may be illegal source in China, it is protected by Millennium Copyright Act in USA. USA also being permanent member of UN Security Council. Look that up.

If you feel that wording needs to be tackled, then Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for everyone to edit. But not to be ignorant and keep pushing revert.
 * No, Youtube is quite stringent about not allowing person A to put up content that is copyright by person B without person B's consent. And Wikipedia is quite stringent, probably more stringent, about that as well WP:ELNEVER. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And why are you the C to decide this?
 * I am one of several C's pointing out that you are the D who is violating some pretty non negotiable Wikipedia policies and if you continue to ignore the policies that you are being pointed to, you will soon be an Ex-D. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Alex Jones (radio host). 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Lee Harvey Oswald, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A summary of important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. -- This also applies to history.  As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Oswald shot Kennedy.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Where do you take the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs)
 * I have those summaries saved to a text file on my desktop. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Lee Harvey Oswald. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lee Harvey Oswald. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Location (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Pudist and conspiracy theories. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. S warm  we ♥ our hive  05:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)