User talk:Rossbarranco

License tagging for Image:The Beatles Anthology 1 - 500 X 500.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Beatles Anthology 1 - 500 X 500.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. 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

File:19780305 017.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:19780305 017.jpg, has been listed at Files 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.  F ASTILYsock  (T ALK ) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Shuttle Enterprise On 747 - 1978.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shuttle Enterprise On 747 - 1978.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Peter Strzok. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 01:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at John Solomon (political commentator)‎, you may be blocked from editing. You made major unsourced changes and despite the warning above added personal commentary. Doug Weller  talk 17:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Sorry. I was purposely trying to get a response to address this slander posted on Wikipedia, and didn't know how to do so. My content dispute is with Wikipedia, not another editor. Wikipedia ALLOWED this slander to be published. Quoting hearsay and accusation as fact should not be allowed. Where is the PROOF that the editor's allegations are TRUE, and John's allegations are FALSE? WIKIPEDIA should be responsible for its content. Documents have been posted which support the John's allegations and are being considered for legal action against the Bidens. How about blocking slander and false allegations by the other editor?? Rossbarranco (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You unfortunately have an issue with the claim that Solomon is a conspiracy theorist. The two citations are from third-party sources. It is not up to us here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The written word is not slanderous, the term is libel. UNTIL such time as Solomon takes the sources to court and wins his case, the description in the lede should stand as written. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  22:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)