User talk:SQGibbon/Archive 4

Elizaveta Polonskaya article
Hey, thanks! I put a lot of work into it, and it's nice to see someone noticed. And you're absolutely right, the headings do make it easier to read. Much appreciated. Languagehat (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nation of Islam article
What do you mean that the change "needs to be integrated more"? The statement in the introduction of the article that says the movement teaches "principles of Islam" is patently false. From fundamental beliefs to all of the various practices, the NOI completely differs from the religion of Islam. Are more references necessary? THere are plenty of articles and even books refuting any claim of NOI to represent true Islam in any sense. Nah22 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag Icons
Why did you delete all the flag icons I added and why is this happening on all the pages of mma fighters? It's factual information and its deletion is extremely annoying. It makes the records section ugly and more difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaNerd8 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Flip cup article
I made the gif wrote most of the text its for a university assignment due tomorrow morning id appreciate it if you'd let me work and not interrupt what im doing. it will be removed after the class "As09rl (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)"

Gene Reynolds
I'm very sorry to contradict you, but he himself has said that he was born 1923 and i did provide a source for it. If you would just watch his Archive of American Television Interview you'll hear his words confirming it. Therefore your edits are unnecesarry, but to err is human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillbillies (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting the impression that you don't want to watch even a small part of his interview. Even if it is for Wiki's sake. Will you just watch the first 7 minutes of the interview

Shanmatham
References to shanmatham are already available under 'denominations' in the article 'Hinduism' but scattered. I tried to bring them all in a list. What new information that I added is the name of a sub-religion 'Kawmaram' for worshipers of Lord Subrahmanya/Skandha/Murugan. http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/shakti-sadhana/120823-forms-god-shanmatham.htm

K.Ramadurai (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Any decision please? I too face problem when I click directly on the above link. Please google for shanmatham and select 'forms of God (Shanmatham).

K.Ramadurai (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Krav Maga
Hi, yes, I know what Trivia means, but I don't understand you. It is normal to list "in popular culture" sections about every martial art and similar things. Plus, they are all sourced. So what's the problem? --Novis-M (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. I see your point, but I disagree with you on one thing - usually, when I search for something that interests me, I always go to "In popular culture" section. Especially when searching for martial arts. For example the Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell - I used to play this game and I loved the martial art in it - now I see it really is Krav Maga. Or let's put it in the opposite direction - someone searches for Krav Maga, doesn't know what is it, and then sees it has been used in some movie. This person can go buy and then watch that movie, and that will tell him much more about Krav Maga, than wikipedia article :) I always prefer to have more things on the wikipedia that are 90% suitable, than few thing that are 100% good. These things won't destroy the article, let's keep them there. More information is always better than less. Thanks for understanding. --Novis-M (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. But I really think it should be there, and that it improves wikipedia - where else should it be, than on wikipedia? :) I'm not going against the community rules or agreements, because I follow this rule: Ignore all rules. Also, I agree that there needs to by trivia, but it is very relative, what trivia is, and what is not, and where we should put it. --Novis-M (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

-

Hi, I took the liberty to undo the deletion of the text about the European Krav Maga Academy Grading system. The info has been verified with EKMA http://www.uw-veiligheid.be/?page_id=2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.225.228 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Midas
What will it take for Midas' depiction in Once Upon a Time to make it into the article? Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an episode description that I found earlier today, but it doesn't seem to meet the requirements for "reliable source". So far I've put it under Prince Charming because no one seems to have objected to such things there. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Brooke Logan
Hi, i would like to ask: Why did you revert all of my edits (this version of the Brooke Logan page?) It's in terrible shape. I was taking the first steps to improvements (starting with the summary). I just need a reason, or i will revert it back to how i did it? All i did was add a Storylines section (splitting it with 1987-2007, 2007-) there is nothing wrong with that. Please tell me the reason why. I did NOTHING wrong to the storyline (i didn't over-detail it with various subheadings) all i did was actually added some content (which should be there) and divided it into two sections.

The information i added wasn't only relevant to "fans of the show". It was just a rough recap of her major story lines so far. You say on the character's talk page that the body of text in the storyline/summary should be 500-1,000 words long. My short summary was just of 780 words; However on the page it does state that the summary may be expanded if the character is a long running character (Without silly subheadings and fancruft). I agree with you that these pages are in really bad shape but WHY have you gone and reverted my edits?. You also said that you have no knowledge of these characters or the show so why have you reverted my edits? They weren't vandalism or fancruft. Also, i began a section "Character Creation" or "casting" or something, and i was going to try and find some sources to expand this section to explain the character a little through real-world sources. I am going to re-ad that section. You know, nothing will happen to the article if either: No one makes the first steps, or everyone deletes everyone's edits etc. I would just like to know what was wrong with my edits? What is the point of keeping a small "controversy" section that should usually be merged into a section talking about the character's reception. On this page it says:

Articles should include:

Character article format
Articles should include:
 * The Infobox soap character, with basic information included. See Template:Infobox soap character for important notes on usage.
 * A lead paragraph which indicates the name of the character, when it originated, current or last portrayer, and a very brief summary of the other material in the article. A good lead encapsulates the entire article in a couple of paragraphs.
 * Notation of all of actors that have played the character, and the dates; this is usually done in the infobox, and often summarized in the lead section.
 * A list of the awards that have been won for the role
 * Storyline summary; 500-1000 words maximum
 * Sources and references. Every article must have verifiable sources such as newspaper and magazine articles that talk about the character, or at the minimum, links to character biography pages on the official website for the series (per policy, fansites are usually considered unreliable). If a character is not notable enough to be mentioned in outside press, then they're not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia!
 * Appropriate categories; see Category:Soap opera characters

And, all i did was add the summary section. And harm done? Good faith yes but i don't feel it should have been deleted. God. thankyou; Im going to add more content to this page (yes btw i have read the Soap Project page) and there is no need to delete this page because it is one of the 4 most recognizable Soap Characters in this show (If you didn't know because you say you don't know the show) and it wouldn't have to be deleted if it was good which it could be. Even if there are 5-6 sources that is at least a start right? Please respond to this with some positive information about how i can contribute to the page without it being deleted. SoapJar21 (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Something is obviously up
you must at least acknowledge that the "editor" of the "list of emoticons" page is deleting content with no good reason.

an emoticon is created by a group of creative individuals and then it spreads, it IS internet culture and having a whole section dedicated to "internet culture" requires a comprehensive list of emoticons.

you should define what an emoticon is

you should define what you want in internet culture (information without a source? thats impossible? the source is the community or millions of people using it as an accepted standard)

most importantly.... when an editor deletes large sections of content that many people use daily willy nilly citing "its got no source" is a sign of someone who doesn't understand the internet... he says he found sources for the "other east asain emoticons" ...

sounds like he just didnt like the way it looked and tore it down without thought for others.

at the very least, revert it, have the guy USE A SANDBOX to make a new article and replace the reversion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.47.138 (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: My Edits
You seem to be reverting them as I attempt to make the articles in question better in their layout. Your edit summarize that they are "overlinking" but I'm simply adding them because they might be unfamiliar terminology to people who are not as adequate with similar words; since one word can have more than one meaning. In my defense, I am actually following the layout of a Featured Article who follows the same guidelines in their linking. Please communicate with me, as I left messages on the talk page, before mindlessly reverting them. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Consensus?
I do not know where you are getting this so-called 'consensus' from; there is no proof of a formal vote, the Help Desk is just an area to receive advice, not to cast formal votes. Also, your claim against 'guidelines' holds no merit as guidelines are merely just that and NOT policies. Per WP:BOLD I have undid your edits. If you wish to open a Request for Action, a vote, in regards to it then feel free to, otherwise I will continue to edit the pages I feel needed. Thanks. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim Donnelly and User:173.55.198.36
I have brought the edit warring on the Tim Donnelly (politician) page to WP:ANI/EW so hopefully this can be resolved there. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 09:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FC Internazionale Milano
''Inter has won 30 domestic trophies, including the league eighteen times, the Coppa Italia seven and the Supercoppa Italiana five. From 2006 to 2010 the club won five successive league titles, equalling the all-time record.[4] Inter have won the Champions League three times; two back-to-back in 1964 and 1965 and then another in 2010.''

Is that correct?

Founded on 9 March 1908 in the back room of the L'Orologiaio (the clock) restaurant in Milan, under the impetus of dissident members of the AC Milan, the club has spent its entire history...

Is that correct? Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!
Thank you for reverting User:DeltaQuad on the Physical attractiveness article. I've told two other editors that Delta reverting my revert of another editor, all because I'm a previously blocked IP proxy, was wrong. But they didn't do anything about it. And just so you know, that same editor who added that material to the Physical attractiveness article also added it repeatedly throughout the Blond article. I was reverted by DeltaQuad there too, so that material still needs reverting. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronaldo
Mr. SQGibbon, On Ronaldo's page, I added he was one of the four player to have received the FIFA Prize, along with Zidane, Messi and Platini. I know Platini received the Ballon D'Or, which wasn't exactly the same prize, but still, it was an equivalent. By disregarding my edit, you also disregarded Michel Platini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.4.163 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New publications on Silent Life, may be now it is time to approve the article
Hello, I saw that there are about dozen of publications about Silent Life, here is the latest http://critic.by/news/29-01-2012/ May I ask you to move the article to the mainspace.

Brearley School Edits
I noticed you made some great cleanups to the Brearley School page on January 20th. Since then two unregistered users have made edits that I don't believe are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically NPOV and verifiability. Would you mind taking a look at the changes since your last edit? I would really appreciate it. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Curry
Thanks very much for your comments. I do have a couple of questions.

1)Opening Summary: While I completely agree that substantive information should have references, I wonder whether it is necessary to duplicate those references in an opening summary when virtually all of the information is substantiated in the following article.  Is there a way to indicate "see below"?  Is this an acceptable practice?  (Just trying to keep things concise ... BTW, I will add references in the current case.)

2)It seems to me that the "Curry" article wanders off course. Most of the subsections on the various regional and national cuisines contain information that is barely tangential to the specific topic.  In my opinion, they need to be significantly edited to focus on the topic (Curry); yet, one would like to preserve this information "somewhere."  Many of these subsections also appear to have been written from "personal knowledge" and contain few references.  Is there some sort of "forum" in which these issues could be discussed?  Any other suggestions how to address this issue?

3)Is it necessary to provide Wiki links to every reference to things like "mustard" or "India"? Personally, I find this terrifically distracting when I'm reading articles, and often times, those links have little or nothing to do with the topic in question.  I think this is called "overlinking" and am wondering whether there are guidelines ..

Thanks very much for your interest. Yankeecook (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt and informative response. Yankeecook (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

terra nova
can you set it right look at Production code their is suppose to be 13 ep fox just aired 12/13 back to back same for 1/2

no point in letting it look like that

look at http://www.tv.com/shows/terra-nova/episodes/ they got it right--Wjmdem (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ
The Bosnian and Croatian sources you insist on adding as a reliable references do absolutely NOT back up the claim that Tatlıtug is of Bosnian decent. Those sources only state that on a television interview in Turkey, he made a reference to his Bosnian roots. However, there is not a single Turkish source where he made this so-called statement. Unless you provide me with one, I and my team will continue to edit out that disputed part in the article. You cannot add gossiping material as a reliable source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demir1923 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fragglish Alien People (Planet 51)
Fragglish means the person or anything is shaped like a Fraggle. I've compared the 2 fraggles and the aliens. I know the Mailman is fragglish because his nose looks like it. I know i've also wanted to show you a picture of a comparsion of the 4 guys of what they look like. Its this image that shows how they are similar or not. You may have to look and see that.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If that when what should it say so that someone else understands what they are?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted "The River" edit
Hey there,

Saw you reverted my "River" edit on critical reception in the UK. You said "We generally don't report viewer response like this unless another source reports it first. (TW)", and I was wondering what did you mean by 'unless another source reports it first'? As it's only available in iTunes there isn't actually a newspaper anywhere that would be interested in doing a report on what they think of the recently episode as its on iTunes. But I was just wondering what you meant by 'reports it first'. And I know the (TW) means Twinkle or something, I've looked on that before but I don't know exactly what it means, what does Twinkle actually mean?

ThanksCharlr6 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see. I do know about the original research part and I did look to see if there was an article about it, I found the link on the iTunes UK website and I thought that it would be acceptable, as the people on iTunes (the viewers) have put their own reviews on and I thought that as on the website it contains these reviews and then an automated average out of five stars then the UK viewer response would talk for itself. Does that make sense? Haha. But basically I thought that the reviews would speak for itself. And I partly knew that there wouldn't be an actual article or British newspaper talking about this. This is because of it not being on TV in the UK, I didn't think a newspaper would be interested in compiling reviews up for something that is just released to iTunes. Hope that makes sense. I'll try and keep on looking to see if there could be an article somewhere.

But I asked about the Twinkle tool as I have been seeing it frequently lately on edit pages and I looked it up but still didn't know what it means. I think I've got my head around it now. Charlr6 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger
IMHO, one of them (HoFCIM (2004-Present) or HoFCIM (2004-present)) should be removed...--Dipralb (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird recent edit bug?
Hello. I followed some links from today's featured article that led to: []

I observed a typo of "Joournal" in the references section. Tried to edit the section, and then tried to edit the article, and it isn't appearing in the text (I'm using Firefox to search it as well as my own parsing of the text). Just wondering if this is a bug that someone should know about. I spent an hour trying to figure out how to fix one typo that should be a (m) edit.

When I edit the References section, I just see Reflist|2 and none of the texts of the actual references (and I can't find them in the article either). Xblkx (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you leave me alone?!
This guy SQGibbon always reverts my edits. I barely see anyone else reverting my edits....Was I assigned to him? Also, many of my points are true, but noone stresses them. If I see his name one more time on a revert, I am leaving Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.14.200 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot I was anonymous. Go ahead. rev my edits. you won't guess how much time goes into them, so that old people can understand the things and terms of the modern world. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you remove my edits, while many other good yet "unsourced" edits have remained on wiki for years? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources for difference between racism and religious discrimination.
http://www.eycb.coe.int/compasito/chapter_5/3.html

That is my first source. Maybe its not perfect but it certainly list them seperate.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

 Rainbowofpeace has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

The user known as Niemti...
I, and many other people find this user's comments and general etiquette to be extremely offensive and unhelpful.

[]

User_talk:Niemti/Archive

I would like to know if there are any measure that can be taken to warn this user of their etiquette?

Please look at our dialogue on Max Payne 3 and notice how he resorts to being offensive and unhelpful with my question about information which is not contained in an article that he/she linked to me.

User_talk:Niemti

This person seriously needs some time out to learn how to talk to users of this site.

I am only sending this to you because i have no idea of the infrastructure of this site. Perhaps you could help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderliam (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Marty Munsch
Still at it. See. I reverted the City Gardens and CBGB ones. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A few questions.
First, explain the difference between Vandalism and Original Research.

Second, please cleanse my records. I have originally created this account for joke edits,but since then, I have stopped intentional vandalism. I rely heavily on Wikipedia for information, so it is only fair that I edit it. I have even REVERTED people's vandalism and OR. I also edit the Wiktionary section (though not as much.)

Also, could you nominate me for being an admin? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. What are "vandalism tools"? And is "tw" some cruel abbreviation of my username? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Writing an article
User:Ticklewickleukulele/Lizzie Velásquez

Lizzie Velasquez is a 23 year old female college student who has a very rare disorder in which she is 60 pounds. She has been cyberbullied and stared at in public. She has been in the news a lot of times, and has recently published a book. I sourced the article to news sources and her website. Is this a worthy topic for Wikipedia?

Also, I need someone to proofread the article, because the prose may not be the best, and some stuff might be taken to be non-neutral.

P.S. The more common spelling is without the accent on the "A", but sometimes I see it with one. Which is appropriate for Wikipedia? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Thank you for your warning message, however I was concerned that it came off as rude and lacked manners. You said I was warned several times not to delete without reasoning; as you can see, going through my edits, I have supported much of my edits, but on two occasions was pulled-up when I slipped. I think you will find a distinction is generally made in the English language between two and several; in fact, the definition of several is, "more than two", so I kindly request you desist from such esagerration :) In addition to this, I had received my first warning, no problem, all good, then I slipped up again, was warned about it, and then exactly 5 minutes later you come in with the big stop sign - what kind of time is this to rectify one's mistake?

Anyway, I again reiterate my thanks for your warning, hopefully I can be more vigilant in my editing :) I also hope my warning about your exagerrative language might also be heeded, as well as giving perhaps more than five minuted before the big red stop sign is dropped

That's the sign in case you are wondering :)ServantofAllah93 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, would like to thank you for your just actions on my wall :) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabic Language
Hi, hope all is well. I believe I already answered your question at the bottom of the Arabic Language Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_language) - If you disagree with what I have said, please let me know, I would much rather a constructive solution reached rather than none at all :) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam Browne Belt
I do not understand why you removed my contribution of september 18 th on the Sam Browne belt. First, if anything was wrong, you could have altered it. Second, there is no proper source to be cited. No one has made any studies about it and most of what I write is the result of observation and experience which are, I think, reliable enough, as far as I am concerned.

Lograsset (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

9gag revert
Would you not say that the link to the website itself, still ravaged with porn and violence, is a reliable source? Tkbx (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no! They don't edit things here. Your post has to be perfect the first time. And apparently every editor has to agree on it. If one guy doesn't revert (delete) it, another one will. I fell like I'm being tag-teamed on my stuff. (User:Tengu16)

Monadnock Defensive Tactics
I wrote an edit to the Monadnock Life Products page, revealing that there are certifications required for officially wielding or teaching the Monadnock Products, such as the PR-24 and expandable batons. Since I hold advanced teaching certifications in this particular subject as a Lafourche Parish/ Louisiana defensive tactics instructor, I am well-qualified to make such an edit. So, what exactly do we have to do to make an edit here? This is not exactly a well-written topic, although it is very easy to find hundreds of MDTS instructors and instructor training programs through online searches. Finding the organizations that certify in those programs, since they are affiliated with police training and are less commerically-oriented than some of their qualified instructors is not so easy. So, what does it take? Do I have to post a copy of my state & organizational certs or something? That would just seem egotistical to me, not really informative at all. (User:Tengu16)

Wiikpedia Rule: "Ignore All Rules"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules Any fool can make a rule. --- Estill Otis Wheeler (1915-1997) "Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengu16 (talk • contribs)

Olive Oil
Regarding the added sentence " and, in particular, in Greece where the first cultivation took place." the references are provided in the same article as

1. Greeks are most heavy consumers of olive oil as the article suggests, with almost 25 liters/year/person and

2. Moreover, as the same article suggest in the section History, "A widespread view exists that the first cultivation took place on the island of Crete."

I believe this is enough justification for my added sentence. Please let me know if this is OK with you! Thanks a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.253.49 (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

in re: Jester
You might want to have a look at discussion taking place over at Articles for deletion/List of jesters. This is relevant to an attempted copy/paste move from what appears to be a new(ish) editor at Jester. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Virgin birth of Jesus
Thank you for showing how wikipedia works. Perhaps you'd care to explain a bit more. Here is the sequence of events:

You undid the contribution - it's lacking sources. I added a source reference. Editor2020 claimed the source is personal (evidently without reading the addition that used a book reference), and reverted it again.

Now, following common sense, shouldn't be burden of proof be on the person who contributed the least - Editor2020?

--50.53.99.98 (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

New Albion
As a Senior Editor II, I see you edited Drake in California. Thanks! Let's keep that as clean as we can.

Can you take a look at the notes at the bottom of Talk for New Albion? I'd be happy to make these edits, but it would be good to have an Editor weigh in on this first. (I'm clearly from the traditional, accepted "camp" of Drake at Drakes Bay -- now a National Historic Landmark.) I'm sure some of the folks from the other ideas would take exception to my acting on the suggestions on the Talk page without an Editor's support.

Thanks

MikeVdP (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Apple pie
Actually the IP user is [partly] correct - apple pie is not from the United States but is from England, or somewhere other than in the US, and dates from maybe the 14th century. See this reference, from the article. Apteva (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the Henry part. It was in a cookbook from about 1390, compiled by King Richard II's cooks. Henry VII was much later, so that part is wrong. Apteva (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Here's the thing, though, I did not replace the England claim with an origin of the US, it's blank now. The link you provided does not make the claim that the apple pie originated in England so until we find a reliable source that makes that claim that entry should be left blank. The other problem was with that editor claiming that Henry VII created the apple pie. This definitely needs a source and seems rather unlikely especially given that the link you provided references an apple pie recipe from before Henry VII was born. SQGibbon (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So in summary - you are right - sorry to have bothered you! Apteva (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No bother, it's actually good to have my edits vetted occasionally by other editors as it's easy to revert good content that just looks bad. SQGibbon (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jester Page
Please check my recent contribution to the Jester talk page as there is relevant information about your reverts re notability in this page. I would appreciate your comments Robynthehode (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ronaldo - "Stalker"
Hi there GIBBON, AL from Portugal here,

in one thing you are not correct my fellow editor, User:Marcospace duly corrected the infobox stats (those are supposed to be for the DOMESTIC league(s) only), if you are to revert anything don't revert the infobox please, he is inserting the correct data.

Attentively - --AL (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your AIV report
Hello SQG. I saw you AIV report about CottonClark. I don't know how it will be handled there but you might consider taking it to ANI. I know that we have had disruptive editors in the past whose favorite haunts are TV/Radio station articles and that they have returned time and again as socks. Sadly, I have never noted the names or the exact situations (due mostly to the fact that I don't edit in these articles) but there will be other editors and admins who will remember. This is only a suggestion and if you don't want to do that I surely understand. We are volunteers and things like this can take time that you would rather be doing something else. Thanks for your vigilance and happy editing. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 00:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It was only a suggestion and it is always a joy when they aren't just messin with us. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sex Dolls is Bias because it is outdated as to evolution of the product.
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_doll

It is my opinion and that of many high end love doll owners that the terms sex doll and love doll have evolved to mean two different product. In an attempt to show that love dolls are no longer just sex, I attempted to provide a link to what is considered as the definitive source of information on Love Dolls and have been thwarted on all attempts.

dollforum.com founded in 2001 has grown to over 37,000 members and is approaching approximately one million visitors per year. It is a forum founded and run by love doll owners and admirers.

Considerable hostility has resulted within our community towards media who persist in using the term sexdoll over love doll, even when substituting said term in quoted interviews. They sensationalize and push the sexual side, completely ignoring changes in both demographic and usage of love dolls (particularly high end), that have occurred over the last 10 years.

Based on polls on our website 33% of love doll owners are either married or in a relationship and only 48% of purchasers buy them with sex being the primary reason. I have been making an effort over the past 5 years to show these more mainstream applications.

The following poll shows this trend to other uses: What is your primary purpose for owning/wanting a love doll? sex and or sexual stimulation leading to and including copulation 	48% 	 48%  	[107] photography 	7% 	 7%  	[15] cuddling / kissing / hanging out buddy without leading to sex/masturbation 	6% 	 6%  	[13] artificial companion (I prefer my doll over an interactive human relationship) 	11% 	 11%  	[25] surrogate partner (helping to fill the void until ms/mr right comes along) 	16% 	 16%  	[35] fantasy play 	5% 	 5%  	[12] enhancement/supplement/compensation within existing human relationship 	5% 	 5%  	[12] Total votes : 222

Society frowns on labeling women as sex objects yet when it comes to an anatomically correct representation of a woman society cannot see beyond the sexual aspect of the doll. If an encyclopedia is to be complete, it should not be suppressing links or information that expands the topic and gives readers access to 'experts' in the field. DollForum.com is a forum of men and woman, married and single, divorced and widowed many of who own one or multiple dolls. Therefore, the forum in itself after 11 years running, should be considered as a whole, an expert within the field. Who better knows about love dolls than those who use them. DollForum.com is a non-profit free membership forum and has the largest knowledge base on love dolls, in the world. Visitor seek it out to help make informed purchases by reading articles by other owners. Not only does it involve in depth discussions on sex, but emotional attachment, photography, sales scams, and many other topics.

I read the Salon.com and nerve.com articles and have to scratch my head when I post a poll link showing user applications that it gets removed. The Salon.com article is creating bias because it centers around one minority individual that forms perhaps 7% of the total love doll user demographic but does not state or reflect this fact. "...you come to understand that behind every Real Doll is a man with a reason. " Yet there are now many woman and couples with dolls. T

The other article is also weighted and more satire than fact... "I've been thinking about it, and I could only come up with one economically viable non-sex use: being able to ride in the carpool lane." How about photography, which has become increasingly popular over the last 5 years. My own doll, Bianca, was front and center in the movie Lars and the Real Girl and only last year traveled to London, UK for a photo shoot that was included in a London high fashion magazine.

If Wikipedia is going to suppress our attempts at showing how love dolls have evolved into more than just sex toys, is it really anymore credible than the sensationalist media?

Perhaps you can help me out here and tell my why a factual poll on love doll usages by owners does not warrant inclusion in the Love Doll wiki article while the above two articles, by opinionated journalists do?

Also, why would Wikipedia not want to include a link or further reading link to the largest source of reliable information on love dolls in the world ?

Sincerely, Dave Hockey aka midiman & knightshot

And BTW... This link: "Real Dolls: Love in the Age of Silicone" - original, more detailed version of the Salon article

No longer works... The domain "saltmag.net" has expired. If you are the owner, please login to your domain manager at http://123ehost-com.shopco.com/ for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightshot (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO YOUR REPLY ********

I thank you for your reply. I do understand how every man and his dog involved in the love doll industry might want to get their website linked to an Wiki article on love dolls. Two things come to mind. You mentioned the rules prohibit links to social networking sites such as FaceBook or Myspace, however, these sites are generic and not dedicated to any specific topic whereas The DollForum (which has been running years longer than both the two mentioned sites), is more of an information resource on love dolls than it is a social networking site. It is dedicated to the specific subject of love dolls. Furthermore the article "I Did it for Science" is in fact posted on a Social Networking site...actually a Dating site. Look at the page it appears on. On that same page in the header is Meet Someone and a button to click to join their dating network...a commercial enterprise. Furthermore is a big block and link to their FaceBook section. So it seems the linking of their article here at Wikipedia more fits Wikipedia's definition of a Social networking site or promoting a website than does CoverDoll which is strictly an ezine.

You stated that Wikipedia does not want to be a forum for promoting the topics of discussion yet you are suppressing information that will steer people to a place that does perform that function and expands the overall knowledge base of the subject. What is the philosophical difference between providing links to third party articles and books but not allowing links to the raw unedited voice of the people who provided the information from which those other linked articles were composed?

Secondly, using your interpretation of the rules I am going to attempt one final post before throwing in the towel on Wikipedia. I think I now have a grasp of what constitutes a valid link and what does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightshot (talk • contribs) 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

nanban film article persistent vandalism by user:kollyfan
please revert it to a proper clean version the article is persistently vandalised by user:kollyfan thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.9.153 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
User:Oirpacid.01 and User:Nawaz Khan99 are sockpuppets. They are revert warring on articles about Vijay films. Obviously they are actor Vijay fans. Please take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.43.66 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Smashed Gladys
Who do you think you are? You know nothing about the history of this product and you have no right to edit it based on "PUFFERY". What a horrible small minded little person you are. The people who made this product suffered hardships that you have no concept of. The description used was humble in comparison to what these people contributed to their community. PUT IT BACK.SallyCato 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycato (talk • contribs)

Smashed Gladys
Fine. Whatever. I think as I mentioned your time is better served elsewhere. There was nothing puffery about what was there. This group created and fostered the entire NYC glam metal scene, from instigating articles that talked about all the up coming bands to seeking out other new bands for the soul purpose of making sure they got to play at the Cat Club,- (the premiere NYC glam metal club) so that these other groups would have the chance to showcase for record companies. Smashed Gladys were known for the sound and their stage shows. That is how we got a 2.5 million dollar deal with Warner Electra. It is also how we helped Circus of Power, The Cycle Sluts and numerous others to have a place where they could be seen. Tommy Gunn and Smashed Gladys did the marketing for the Cat Club which went on to be a showcase for Album parties as well- Joan Jett, David Bowie, etc etc had major album release parties there because of the seen we created. On any given night at a Smashed Gladys show you might see Iggy Pop, members of The New York Dolls, Guns and Roses, Blackie Lawless or Motley Crüe in the audience. As a matter of fact Tommy Lee and Nicki Six were at our signing show. This is just the tip of a very important cultural iceberg. One that I am only just now having the time to dedicate again to. I spent 20 years as the co-writer, lead singer and band leader for this group. And as a woman, I helped kick down the doors so that the industry would start to take famale artists more seriously. AND we did this while we were virtually starving to death. I myself was lucky, as a designer to move into a more financially stable life later on. I am now a media designer. But I was lucky. So many of the artists that were part of this scene are destitute. Smashed Gladys represented hope to a great deal of people, and today, they represent a time of joy to millions. Don't take that away from these people. If you google Smashed Gladys you will see about 250,000 results. AND that is spontaneous. I have only in the last few weeks begun to put up official information. I had begun several sites, but until now have not been able to ad content. Culture is all an artist has. Remember- we did all this b4 there were computers. Yes- before each gig we had to design large poster and have them printed, then take the equipment truck and put them up with wall paper paste, then we had to all sit there preparing and mailing the huge invitation list, then we had to rehearse every day and then we got to play for exactly one hour. Oh- and did I mention one of the members was suffering from a life threatening illness at the same time. NOT and STD either. They did survive I am proud to say. This was the hardest project I have ever been involved with and one that has absolutely no regrets- accept maybe the way wiki shows total disrespect. Yes the audience saw us as "living the big life" That illusion cost us every penny we ever earned. But you know what, it was worth it. That was our gift to the other artist and to the audience- we let people feel like they were part of that "Big Life". Probably our lack of elitism was our ultimate downfalls. If we had been jerks we would have probably been around longer.

Did I mention we have never gotten a penny from record sales either? 70,000 units of the second album were sold in less than 3 months- without any advertising- And now our music, including stolen demo tapes is for sale every day all over the internet.

Are we alone. Of course not. But I despise injustice, and if my savvy helps other musicians and artists who have suffered similar insults then it is worth it to push for change.

The leased wiki can do is have a way for a person or group to be "wiki-cerified" Meaning that you can apply for a certificate sanctioned by wikipedia that will allow them to submit certain credentials that allow them to protect the content of what is said on your sites. Hey I will help get that code written. Just ask.

As least you know the truth. If you take your job seriously you will make sure your "higher ups" see this and do something about it.

Price is not an issue- I just volunteered to help.

Sally CatoSallyCato 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycato (talk • contribs)

Smashed Gladys
If what you say is true then why is there so much unverified disinformation on these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycato (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Smashed Gladys
If what you say is true then why is there so much unverified disinformation on these pages? 90% of my changes are based on that one issue alone. AS far as the rest, boy will I get verification. SallyCato 03:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycato (talk • contribs)

Was "was", is "is"
Thanks for the pointer; now I know! The IP BTW is a sock of an editor with some serious competence problems whose edits are, more often than not, the opposite of correct. This is a lesson to undertake my own due diligence - JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Boohbah reversion
Per your observation yesterday. See Sockpuppet investigations/Davebrayfb. JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Walking Dead
Hey dude...or dudette. lol. I added people on the Walking Dead page like Melissa McBride, Scott Wilson, etc, because some of the actors I listed are actually in more episodes than others like Sarah Wayne Callies and Jon Bernthal (yes, they died, so 'not their fault' but ya know what I mean lol). But on Talking Dead the show after Walking Dead the producers said they use the opening credits and then the "also starring..." after the episode begins as a device to keep us guessing as an audience and they cited the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode when Tara (Amber Benson) was finally in the opening credit sequence, and that very episode they killed her off. Anyway, some I added may indeed be questionable, but I would think most people would consider Melissa McBride, Scott Wilson, IronE Singleton to be main characters. Anyway: I'm just a huge fan of the show and almost an addict, but you are the "gatekeeper" and may have more information than me. i was just trying to add to the page and apologies if you didn't like it.

Basically I thought my info was good, meant well, and in no way am trying to vandalize the page, etc. and if wrong, apologies.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah! 50.26.136.217 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not the one who reverted edit. You probably want to talk to USER:CityOfSilver or bring up your points on the talk page of the article. I will say this, I understand your reasoning but the reason you were reverted was not because you were being accused of vandalism but because IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source. If you had a different source then the result might have been different. Not saying it would have been as I have not looked into the issue but just telling you that it was doomed from the beginning once you used IMDB as a source. Good luck. SQGibbon (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag (game) Unsourced Variants
You removed the "Line tag" section, but not the "Fox and geese" section, which was under "Line tag." If "Fox and geese" has a reference, doesn't that mean Line tag is technically okay? Just asking. By the way, "Fox and geese" states it's a type of Line tag. Also, "Fox and geese" now looks like it is under the "Laser tag" section. WiHkibew (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted this on the article's talk page, but you did not respond. § WiHkibew (talk) § 22:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambivalence AN/I report
I have closed the AN/I case, as you can see here. I have blocked Validfortravel for three days. I have also blocked three IP addresses for a week, the behavioural evidence plus information available about the IPs being enough, without the other evidence you say you have. However, if the evidence that you have has further significance then feel welcome to email it to me: I will keep it strictly confidential. There is clear consensus against including the image in the article, and if it comes back again then you may like to contact me on my talk page, and if so I will consider whether any further administrative action is appropriate. There are several other possible actions, if they are needed, but I hope they won't be, as the present blocks may be enough to convey the message. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No such luck. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the email. There is enough there to persuade me that the user's intention all along was disruptive, and I will change the block to indefinite. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

BCE
Looks like I remembered WP:ERA wrongly; I thought it specified what I said. Thanks for the reminder. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 'Government'
The last edition you reverted on article 'Government' was mine. First above all the references [2] leading to no no definition only to some info about the book/dictionary, so it is no valid at all. The reference [3} goes to definition: `the governing body of a nation, state, or community`. In conclusion the edition about Commonwealth and USA are misleading, simple wrong. Please do not revert my improvements. I will remove the nonsense and add at least tomorrow appropriate reference to my edition.--Sok-not (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Freeboard (skateboard)
Hi mate, after an edit conflict between you and I (we both tried to revert vandalism to Freeboard (skateboard) at the same time) I've asked for the page to be semi-protected at WP:RFPP. The promo-spam vandalism seems to have been rife since August this year and you've reverted vandalism there four times already (well done by the way!). Clearly the IPs responsible aren't getting the message. Anyway, we'll see what the RFPP admins think, but I thought I should drop your a courtesy note so you were aware I had asked. Cheers, Stalwart 111  22:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed a consistent IP range was being used (93.42.2XX.XXX) and given the previous block, I'm about to lodge a case at WP:ANI per WP:EVASION. If that range is blocked then I can probably withdraw the semi-protect request. The article needed work and I couldn't see the value in two articles; one about the product created by the company and the other about the company and the product it created. So I merged them. Anyway, will be posting at ANI shortly. Cheers! Stalwart 111  22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't template-notify you, but you should be aware this now at ANI (here). Cheers, Stalwart 111  23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Yes - had seen the semi-protect and noted it at ANI. Hopefully that will fix the problem for a while. Thanks for the note. Cheers! Stalwart 111  12:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Help?
How was that last post disruptive or vandalism, I cited numerous extremely reputable sources, and was drawing valid conclusions which these reputable sources have made as well. Seriously, who's running this web site? CIA? NSA? STASI? KGB? BORG? You do realize I'm intel myself, right? There's some serious problems these edits are posing on the legitimacy of this web site. DO I have to mount a campaign against this web site's information?

This is a public issue going on, and what you're doing is seriously no different than the bookburning that occured...

I'm asking for your help. How could that last post have used any more reputable sources than I used? (with f/a/s/c/i/s/m) USER:67.166.90.45

SPI
After our discussion above and the latest comment at Articles for deletion/Aldo Grippaldi, I've opened a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Unotretre. I just can't see any way these are not the same person. I am working to add the IP addresses also. Stalwart 111  08:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SPI has concluded both are socks of Unotretre. All have been blocked or, in the case of Unotretre, re-blocked. I also took the liberty of striking their comments at AFD. Stalwart 111  14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're back at ANI under a thread started by User:Vituzzu (an it.wiki admin/crat) - thought you should know. Cheers, Stalwart 111  23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, mate. Needs to be dealt with. I can't believe the suggestion that WP should remove material that paints his company in a bad light, when the company has only been mentioned because of his poor behaviour, promo-spam, legal threats and blocks. Amazing! Good luck with RL business! Stalwart 111  01:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits to "Opening Act"
Hi there! I haven't really evaluated your work, but it looks like you keep busy and contribute a lot. I tend to take an optimistic view: If you edit a lot, you're probably a good editor. So, that's great!

On 20:48, 3 August 2010‎, you reverted two edits to Opening act by Diving2010 on the grounds that they were "original research.". I came here specifically to say that, really, with the slightest of alterations, the contributor's work could be made into a rather indisputable and perfectly-obvious statement, requiring no citation. Honestly, I thought it was pretty much indisputable as it was, but I realize this is Wikipedia, and sometimes you have to re-word a statement into the-sky-is-blue territory to skate away without a citation. So, after a few other edits I see the article needs more (it has an unfortunate tendency to be overly specific in some ways), I'm going to re-work his contribution back into the article, in more appropriate language. I felt I should tell you.

The article is one of the rare cases in which I'm inclined to ask, "Is this article even needed?" So I hope we aren't about to be in conflict with each other, because I can only care so much about it! Best wishes to you.

--Ben Culture (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, don't bother with it. I stumbled onto a couple of sources for the point I wanted to make in the article. I think The Los Angeles Times and Rolling Stone magazine will suffice, eh?
 * I'll ask your opinion on this, instead: I removed language indicating that the term "supporting act" was specific to British English and Australian -- basically, claiming we don't use the term here in the U.S.A. But we do! I hear it plenty of times - and I live in Texas, which is a pretty mainstream, if not backwards, state. So, I just simplified the sentence to indicate "supporting act" is just one of three different terms English speakers use. I guess, if you agree, do nothing! And if you disagree, put it back in!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Recycled characters
It's clearly possible that cartoon, 3d animated characters can be recycled to their other show that they appear in different than they normally appear in. Daphne was recycled once into the Grandma Got Ran Over by a Reindeer as Cousin Mel. I've looked in the dictionary of recycle also. Plus, she does continue to appear in the scooby doo universe but she was recycled to another movie. Could you clarify that any character and not only muppets are recycled?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-con or van?
User talk:108.20.166.230 has a non-constructive template followed by a vandalism template, for pretty much the same thing: chopping out section headers. I just restored another header at Diane Whipple: what template do I put on 108's talk page, please? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. They kept going so I reported them to ANV. Be well. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethical consumerism critics revert
Dear sir, you reverted my edit in ethical consumerism critics. Do you think that contemporary philosopher(Zizek) that has a high citation index is not a "reliable opinion"? Irarmy (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Fluff?
I just read the source news articles about Scholarbuys, and all I did was add more detail from those sources to the Wikipedia article. You've undone quite a bit of my work, dismissing it as "fluff"? Was it fluff to have been included in the newspaper articles? ... 70.215.65.238 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Arab Spring
Hello. I understand your position that my content was not relevant. But I am confused by the "smells of copyright violations" comment. I want to understand your comment so, if I am wrong, I will not make this same mistake. Are you suggesting I plagiarized? Or...What are you suggesting? Css86 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Response. No worries. It was all my own wording. I guess my wording was "too advanced" for wikipedia?Css86 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011
Looking over some of this editor's edits, which are often problematic (especially in the grammatical sense), it looks like you are keeping an eye on him or her. Thank you for that; I would award you a barnstar just for that, but it could be seen as inappropriate. To my recollection, I first saw this editor at the Sex organ article, but it was two different editors who ended up reverting him or her there.

Also thank you for your edits in general; I often see you reverting crap, and I should award you a barnstar for that. I likely will in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have seen it already, and would check back at some point anyway, but I replied at my talk page. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey SQGibbon; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan (Cocktail) edit
My only references are cocktail menus when wanting a Manhattan with Canadian Whisky - I am unsure how to reference this as (like many cocktail recipe variations) they just start getting used by a cocktail barman and appear on a menu... Firebuild (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch~!

 * For my hours of mindless searching and reading on Wikipedia, this really made me laughed. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Juggling
Thanks for flagging up the lack of references for jugglers in juggling article. Has now been remedied. However please in future flag up my errors in the article talk page before editing. I am on a long term project to improve juggling and circus pages to make them better with proper citations and further reading and to make the information in each relate properly to each other. Robynthehode (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Freeboard
Yeah, ongoing fun! I have no problem with them being included, nor do I have a problem with them not being included. I had a problem with them being used to replace reliably sourced content with shouted claims about REAL DATA. LOL. I suppose if they add some useful info (which I think you could argue they do with proper links added) then there's no harm having them there. But I'm probably 50/50 on the matter. Stalwart 111  12:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely. Don't worry about the SPI - someone will merge them. Stalwart 111  20:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you want to add a note at WP:ANI, or would you like me to? Stalwart 111  20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done and sock blocked. Stalwart 111  21:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's hope! Stalwart 111  21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Some more references, , , and I commented on the Freeboard article talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: March 2013
I know about manual of Style, thank you anyway for your advice; but the wikilinks that I've added in Consommé do not looks as "deviating from this style": they do llok to fall under the instruction/example in WP:OVERLINK (section that you've pointed out) but under the ones in the section above Manual of Style/Linking: "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully", "articles with relevant information" and "articles explaining terminology of technical words, jargon, or slang expressions and phrases". So I'm puzzled by your reverting and advice.

(A fault of mine, instead, was indeed not to have checked out that stirring is a redirect to a disambiguation page) --80.181.226.112 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Vivekananda
What do you know about the Vedic authority? Vivekananda is NOT an authorized spiritual teacher, according to the authorized Vedic literatures. It was not original research. The verse was there in the Padma Purana from time immemorial. The Vedas are not the works of ordinary humans, but have originated from God (or more specifically: the Supreme Person who is the Absolute Truth), one principal name of whose is "Krishna". You may not know anything about spiritual matters, so do not delete things out of ignorance. Thank you.

-59.95.1.219 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I put in that Kane was Jewish as his surname is 'Jacobs', which is a Jewish name. As for Goldust, most sites say 1966 was his year of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorian calendar (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Gangbang article
You weren't there that day. You don't know what a 112 million people gangbang looks like. It scars you for life. I ain't kiddin'.--TheAmericanizator (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
I see from your user page that you are actually homeless (sorry for your situation). I'm curious how/where do you edit Wikipedia from? Ecelon (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Homeless
You've been homeless. So, May God have mercy your soul and one day you may have your home 99.229.41.79 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good for a laugh...
Just in case you were feeling a little down, this might cheer you up.

Associated chortle-worthy material here. The laughs never end! Stalwart 111  09:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it has made for a fun day. You're right - glad it's only once every little while rather than a constant thing. Stalwart 111  13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Public Speaking revert of Speakers Ranked
Hi there, you reverted my edit and asked for no further changes without discussing it with you. The reason I took the apostrophe off Speakers Ranked (and that's absolutely all I did to the page) is simply because the official name of the website is Speakers Ranked, not Speaker's Ranked. Not sure why my change would appear promotional when it looks to me like a very straightforward fact correction, but do let me know if I've missed something here. Thanks. Libby norman (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Looking again, I can see what happened and I support your revisions. I tagged this page back in April as lacking a world view and added it to my watchlist, but haven't quite decided where/how to improve. It also appears to be a dumping ground for a fair bit of questionable and unsourced material. I'm going to fix Speakers Ranked and keep watching. Libby norman (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Animaniacs in Singapore
When I went to Singapore, I saw Animaniacs on Channel 5. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Three revert rule
You leave a message that said I've performed a three revert rule on Animaniacs. What is a three revert rule means. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but, IMDB is also not considered a reliable source for information like this.
I'm not familiar on how reliable IMDb is. The place where I used it (which was reverted) was intended to reference an actor's history of roles, relevant to the section that needed a citation. If IMDb isn't considered a reliable source for information like this, then what is it reliable for? Is it reliable for anything? Thanks!Datdyat (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Morse code
Regarding your reversion of an IP and edit summary of "What?". See my comment at Talk:Morse code  Spinning Spark  07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking
I disagree. This guy is a bit domineering and straitlaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Book Breaker (talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

About the edits to the Cuisine Pages
Hi, I added the links as i thought they were related to the page topic. At the same time, how come the 2 links in the Cuisine of Karnataka are ok when they are not related to the page topic and are just spam site? The link(s) that i added was about the cuisines (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala) and was not intended to game the page for any benefit.

(Spk100 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC))

Lost Girl Broadcast Section
Hi SQGibbin, I apologise I didn't realize that the table was not the preferred medium, only going off other pages I have seen and found the table to be much neater. Would I be able to do like The Listener and have the table under the prose section which does not obtain all the dates and networks necessarily discussed? I am a self-taught Wikipedia user and so while I do a fair amount of editing, this is the first time I have been told what I have done is incorrect and so I would like to know as much as possible for future edits. Thanks Forbesy 777 (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply on my talk page and informing me of Wikipedia TV formatting. I will take it aboard and (when I have time) I will take on one article at a time to line them up with the formatting rules. Thanks again Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi SQGibbon I apologise in advance but I have a question in relation to Broadcast-section style. On the style page it states to only discuss English-speaking countries in the broadcast section, and I was wondering if you could inform me if I am correct or incorrect in cross referring the countries currently listed on incorrectly formatted pages with the List of countries where English is an official language page, and then removing those not listed as English-speaking? I realize this is a rather daft question but would rather ask a highly rated editor for help then to simply guess it is the right thing to do. Thank you for your time and I appreciate any help you can give me. Forbesy 777 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I have just finished redoing The Listener (TV series) which took roughly 3 hours by the time I found references (amazingly there was not one reference in the existing section that could be used). Hopefully no one finds a fault with it as I followed the guidelines to the letter. Thank you again for the help Forbesy 777 (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow I am honored to receive a Barnstar! Thank you very much! If it wasn't for your help I would still be improperly editing so you are solely to thank. Thank you again Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Zonnon
Hi! I found four independent reliable source references about Zonnon so I re-established the article WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Danny
I don't understand why you consider linking to a website with information about a TV show as promotional. RE: Candy Candy editing. Skolpopia (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

13 june 2013 Removal of Selmer guitar post: I've posted a link and details of Selmer 647 for fellow enthusiasts to enjoy, why you think this might be unsuitable is beyond me. Please reinstate the link. These are pictures of a very ate and unusual instrument. The blog in which it featured is a non commercial information blog. NKForster — Preceding unsigned comment added by NKForster (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Pettis
I'm not sure if you reverted it based upon having never seen Anthony Pettis in action but Showtime IS his nickname. He has it tattooed on his back, is referred often as only "Showtime", and has it announced as part of his time everytime he fights. CMCyantist (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see, I even agree on your point on the positioning of the nickname, to clear up a few things, I wasn't edit warring, the person previously added a nickname he had never used, thinking it was vandalism and that style of positioning was the norm on those articles. Thanks for clearing this up and will use your suggestion in future :) CMCyantist (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

69.198.195.106 (vandal)
I have reason to believe that the person with the IP 69.198.195.106 is a vandal. He recently erased the entirety of the MasterChef Season 4 page for no reason (thank goodness for the undo option). I saw that you had had a similar problem with him in the past and I wanted to make you aware that it was not an isolated incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.59.57 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald
I'm a little unclear on why you felt Lee Harvey Oswald didn't belong on the Wikipedia list of different Oswald's. There was a section specifically about people associated with the name Oswald, which was where I added him. You wrote, "These are both contained within the disambiguation pages linked to just above." But I wasn't able to find the link that I believe you're saying already exists somewhere on that page. Currently, anyone typing in "Oswald" (who might be unfamiliar with Lee Harvey Oswald's first name) gets taken to that page, and yet that page has no clear link to, arguably, the most infamous Oswald. Ideas, suggestions, comments would be appreciated as I definitely feel that there needs to be some kind of clear link to Lee Harvey Oswald's wikipedia page from the Oswald page. Thanks. Chrisbat92024 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Chrisbat92024 Chrisbat92024 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC) -- PS. I'm not totally familiar with how users are supposed to discuss edits on wikipedia. If you have a page to some kind of standard protocol, please feel free to write it on my talk page.

Continuum and TV:MOS
Hi, you reverted my edit with "As per MOS:TV we should only list English-language broadcasts. If this is in English then please add it back". The broadcast is indeed in English (with optional subtitles), but MOS:TV seems to actually say "Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form.". Doesn't this mean that it should not be added back and instead even the already-existing Belgium-specific sentence be removed, since Belgium is not an English-speaking country? Please advise on whether to add my edit back or remove the 2BE mention. Thanks. Anssi (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

American vs. British
I do agree that the symbols to set off quotes (" vs ') can be stylistic, but I think this paragraph was specifically speaking of styles of punctuation (i.e. whether to place the periods or commas inside the quote or outside of it) rather than styles of quotation. On an unrelated note (unless this is what you meant), David Foster Wallace taught at my college, so I do wonder what style he graded his students on (and what style he was published in)! When I took my freshman seminar at Pomona College (a class he would have taught as a Roy E. Disney Professor of Creative Writing and English Professor), my Canadian professor stressed that even the international students had to get used to American standard and lectured us on the differences. I really think that in formal writing, we have one standard. JustAMuggle (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's time that we stop using the unsourced and ambiguous phrase "some Americans use British style" quotation punctuation (a.k.a. "logical quotation"). In English-speaking North America, British style quotation punctuation is a decidedly minority practice, the overwhelming majority of American and Canadian style guides endorse the continued use of American style, and you count the number ofi American professional publications that use British style on one hand (at last count, two -- the journals of the Linguistic Society of America and the American Chemical Society).  Because virtually all American and Canadian newspapers follow either the AP Style Manual or the CP Style Book, finding an English language North American newspaper that uses British style quotation punctuation is nearly impossible.  British style quotation punctuation is not taught in American secondary schools and universities, most Americans are unfamiliar with it, and the overwhelming majority of American academic publications follow either The Chicago Manual of Style or one of the various MLA style guides.  In short, the use of British style punctuation in American English is eccentric, odd, and quirky, and does not represent mainstream American or Canadian usage.  Any statement that implies that British style is somehow a mainstream or acceptable alternative usage in American English needs to be supported with a sourced footnote or deleted per WP:V and WP:RS.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Spambot
Your nothing but a spambot, don't follow their contributions and then remove necessary content as Original research and needs citations. Not everything has to have those things unless it's available. If you can leave their contributions alone, I'll give you a gift.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Top Chef and "hair-gate"
Hi SQGibbon, thanks for your message on my talk page. To keep the conversation cohesive, please leave further commentary on the talk page of the subject in question (in this case, Marcel Vigneron). That's where you'll find my response. Thanks.174.17.36.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Future fights in MMA records table
I replied on my own talk page regarding this topic. Would you be so kind to check it?SiMntjMMA (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill Hicks is Alex Jones Hoax Conspiracy
you are correct that was probably a primary source but the problem is that the secondary source, (lunatic outpost.com)--where I heard about this first today, was also rejected before as an article source although it is not black-listed per se. There are many references to this idea, and seeing as how Hick already had a conspiracy area on the article, I thought that it would fit there. Here is my problem---what is considered a good source when talking about conspiracy? Do you think that this would be acceptable? http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2013/02/alex-jones-is-bill-hicks.html When I searched earlier, I did find many references to Hicks/Jones death-hoax, and the story appears to have started at a 10th anniversary of Hick's death, where Hick's friends gave Jones an award. That version is also referenced on YouTube and elsewhere but I am wondering what kind of source will be acceptable here? I don't really care about the teeth business except but that is the most recent variation to the hoax-story. There is older stuff (the award, 10th deathaversary), but I think that the fact that someone who dealt-with conspiracy, is now the subject of one posthumously, is good encyclopedic content for that article.-Thanks for any help you can give with this 24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on Pakistani-related socks
Thanks for the work on the Pakistani-related articles. I thought you might want to be aware that there appears to be a large amount of pr-related sockpuppetry going on with these articles, and accounts are being routinely blocked. Because of the large range and dynamic nature of the ip's, not much can can be done about them. See Talk:Humaima_Malick. If you are aware of any discussions about this on noticeboards or elsewhere, I'd like to know. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for verifying and cleaning up the Puder article as well as others! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

King
Are you really against King having its own article? Because i had posted in its talk page but it seems pretty abandoned now. Turgeis (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

digimon
can you go back and make sure what i just edited on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimon#Video_games is right

i change the picture because it did not match digimon world 2 or 3 i think i got it right but i need a second opinion --Wjmdem (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hookah
How was the manner in which I presented the information any different than what's already been posted using Encyclopedia Iranica articles? I put the reference link in my post. The information preceding mine was from the same web source and it didn't have quotation marks either. And I was only repeating it because it was in the same context as the other historical information. There's a lot of repetition in the Hookah article, in addition to being poorly written. If I re-post the information with quotation marks, I assume it will be acceptable, correct? --Foreverknowledge (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have no life ?
Do you have nothing better to do other than stalk me on here and revert all my edits for no reason ? 100.40.27.236 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok i guess you dont have anything better to do must be lonely sitting there in your parents basement fat, alone and still a virgin maybe instead of stalking me you should get a job or a girlfriend...something just stop stalking me please. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Get off your fucking high horse the only reason you keep reverting my edits is so you can push someone around for a second and my edits ohhhhh! goodness i added the fighters reach to the fucking page oh my how controversial like i said stop stalking me it seems i was right about you well everything but the basement as it seems you are homeless you're parents must have thrown you out. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Damn sounds like you have it rough maybe you should quit i can handle things from here on out. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ermahgerd da REACH WARS its a conspiracy oh noes !!! whatever will we do against the coming armageddon. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously try not to be a Dick in the future then we wouldn't have to talk at all. 100.40.27.236 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
I didn't ping you in particular but we're at ANI. Stalwart 111  05:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm also at 3RR at Freeboard trying to revert yet more of his crap. Stalwart 111  06:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
for the helpful info, which I was unaware of previously. It is very much appreciated. Grammarspellchecker (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Briosys
I request you to block user Briosys, because he keeps adding the unreliable source iFlickz, despite repeated warnings not to do so. In fact, he copies text from the source without even rewording them. Due to his adamant nature, I think we better block him. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

An Invitation to Wikiproject Traditional Medicine
I would like to invite you and anyone else whom might be interested, to support wiki project traditional medicine in getting started. The projects goal is to improve coverage on topics of traditional medicine practices; using primarily ethno medical and anthropological journals. Though mostly of anthropological value the support of anyone with biological or cultural knowledge is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Voice Cast Vandal
Hi, SQG, I saw your edit here, and I thought that it might be worth mentioning that there is a vandal dubbed "The Voice Cast Vandal", not saying it's the guy you reverted, just heads-up! (Although I know that you've been around a lot longer than I and may probably be well-aware of this dude.) :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, since there's little similarity between the two, I think I totally just wasted your time with unnecessary info. Sorry about that.  :/ Sigh... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong

 * Good catch on this revert~! For the record, it is nothing short of that anon IP adding his/her personal opinion without stating any reliable & verifiable sources to back up them in pushing their own agenda. After re-checking, it is my opinion that someone is playing a good hand/bad hand game whilst at it, thus making a sort of sneaky vandalism. And as a side note, I've observed that these clowns' input happens usually around times of CHC's own trial/tribulation (if one can call that that!). ... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This article, and the people involved in the church, has been a constant target of positive and negative POV-pushing. So much so that now it's not just in my watchlist but I also subscribe to the RSS feed so I don't accidentally miss any changes. It's tiring and a subject I have absolutely no interest in but it's just a magnet for crap. Thanks for catching the other IP edit I missed, usually I'm savvy enough to check all IP edits when reverting but I guess this time I was just lazy or got sidetracked by how hard the latter IP editor tried to make their POV-pushing look legitimate. In the past the article has been a target off-site canvassing on at least a couple of occasions and I think is constantly on the minds of its supporters and detractors. It will never end. SQGibbon (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm not worried about them supporters (I assure you I've got this covered!), its the fake supporters (the real difference is in the mindset) who are making life difficult in the cyberspace world. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

All Growed Up as copyright violation
As Psychonaut said, stop removing the deletion template. YouTubeFan43 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability
If you think an article I've created isn't notable, please take it to a deletion discussion. There is no need to clutter up these articles with nuisance tags. Thanks. As far as your merger proposal, would you merge Switcha to lemonade or limeade? What about the soda involved? I think it's best left as a stand alone. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev
You delete, before you read, again. The Talk page is mean nothing about you. Please, read, before to use totalitarian methods! Thank you in advance! - JanHusCz (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

vaibhav Choudhary
Yesterday you removed a comment from Subhash k. Jha, there was a change of rating in grand masti review and he actually gave no star whereas earlier it was stated 2 stars, i changed it to no star and you remove whole link marking it as spam, please don't edit without even reading it

With due respect i agree with you on this but how can u judge that skjbollywoodnews.com is not a reliable source, it is headed by veteran journalist Subhash K. Jha and all of the reviews are his, i didn't add anything which is spammy or out of context. Adding reliable source and comments are of what wikipedia is all about, you can't just consider anything spammy as per your opinion. I with due respect like you to take notice of all the reviews done by Subhash K. Jha and try to verify the fact before considering something reliable or not. You have full authority to delete anything anytime but considering a reliable source spammy doesn't solve the purpose. Final decision rests on you. With warm regards vaibhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.times (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Again thanks a lot for guidance but as i said it is the most reliable site as far as subhash k. jha is concerned because he is one of the senior journalist of bollywood. I respect the fact that anyone could have mistaken it as spam but it is not in true sense. Anyways thanks a lot for your concern and will be needing more of your guidance in future..

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mistresses (U.S. TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Raja Rani
Hey! The film released today. I don't know why you reverted edits by anon. If there was any copyvio, you could have cleaned up. Please look into it. -- Sriram speak up  17:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

its out of control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_hardcore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.201.63 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I cleaned it out again. SQGibbon (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

thats great. what a mess. lots of disambiguation links as well. I can get rid of this ok please. cheers.

Hi, there isnt One band in fourth wave 2000-2008 or fifth wave 2009-present that is a band with a link. those all link to names of songs, tv shows, fictional characters etc. Not one is a band. Just wanted to pass that along. cheers. after a while lets delete this section. if thats possible. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.201.63 (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

one more if you dont mind
what is this person doing. they have a page "forward slash" band page ? putting links in to articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roscoe567/Undead_Generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roscoe567/Kak_Cool_Demo just saw that wanted to share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undead_Generation thanks for your help. cant make sense out of it. have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.201.63 (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Userofthedecade
hi can you stop deleting my entries im trying to contribute to the comunity thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userofthedecade (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. In gratitude, I returned the favor. Paris1127 (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Demi Moore, birth name Demetria
Why would you remove reference to her given first name from her page? It is otherwise currently not noted anywhere there, with the lead introducing her only as Demi Guynes Kutcher. She may have formally changed her first name to Demi at some point, but that was not her birth name. Shouldn't that be noted? Otherwise, leaving it out is misleading.

www.imdb.com/name/nm0000193/bio

166.70.236.204 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Em

hi y u remove this content?
hi y u remove this content? Madha Yaanai Koottam Audio Launch function held at Chennai Sathyam Cinemas. The Audio has been released by Director Bharathiraja and received by Director Bala. The Trailer has been released by Director Balu Mahendra and received by Director K.R.

Question?
- ? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Vyacheslav84\Ninja - agree? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor
Thank you for your contribution on Shraddha Kapoor, i feel you should intervene/dispute on the talk page before you impose your edit, please feel free to justify/clarify your actions. Sorry i am reverting your edit once again due to inappropriate tag. Showing the concern, i am currently the | major editor of the article, i will submit sources to prove the actions you still can dispute about the facts, thank you so much --- L'Oréal Smauritius '' Parce que vous le valez bien! 13:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sidharth Malhotra
I know that no one had the ownership of any page, but still refering to fixed some of the unencyclopedic tone style, you should be aware of your acts, as by removing summary make a page seem in an unencyclopedic tone, see for Sidharth Malhotra when you had reverting many section had disappeared, you should think twice or even thrice, view the history check each actions before reverting. The talk page are here to talk, you can leave a note/message before reverting them. --- L'Oréal Smauritius '' Parce que vous le valez bien! 13:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Patema Inverted
This was an unnecessary change, the announcement came directly from the publisher, if you want to help you could instead help me put the link in as I don't know how to work the sources. This will be released next summer and I see no reason why I should have to go and find another source closer to the date just to put the same information back on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamsDreams (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Goldust and Kane
The only reason Gregorian Calendar added that Kane is Jewish is, with a surname like 'Jacobs', the name 'Jacob' is Jewish. As for Goldust's year of birth, I've found websites that say he was born in 1966.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Idiot
You must change the Lil' Jon back to the way it waz. It helps people understand what (WATTT!?!?) Lil Jon and his boyz are about. I feel like many people would agree with me. You have to think a little bit when making wikipedia pages, not just find mass information and randomly put it in there like you. Get a life senior wikipedia editor. CHANGE LIL JON BAK TO DA WAY IT WAZ!!!!

-Luke P.S. You are most definately not the king of crunk. So you do not have control over the king of crunk's page. Change dat shyt back dawg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukesaylor (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Marty Munsch
Everything About Marty Munsch in the updates were sourced and correct. Let it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Matt Wiman
I'm curious why you changed my recent edits on the subject page? The comment refers to copyright issues. Matt gave me express authorization to use his picture and specifically requested that I update the page. I'm relatively new to the edit side of Wikipedia and would appreciate any feedback. Regards, Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavemanosu (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Zarine Kahn
Regarding this edit [], good catch. I didn't see that had been snook into the article again. Nice work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop editing factual submissions based on your fan opinions with such ludicrous accusations as vandalism.
That you labeled a factual breakdown of events in a boxing match as vandalism is ludicrous at best. Stop changing the submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.146.12 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

El Cata
Thanks for your work on the page; I have left a note on the user's talk page and blocked him temporarily for a username violation. I suspect the user will return, either after verifying his identity or by switching usernames. If you want to keep an eye on the page, feel free to drop me a line if things seem to be getting out of hand (do keep WP:3RR in mind, of course). Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Free and Open Source Android Software
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Sorry about adding AntennaPod back in. I did that before reading your message. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Pollard
Thank you for contacting me. I greatly appreciate it. I am reporting accurate information. Israel had to release these prisoners based upon American pressure.

Many of the prisoners have murdered Israeli civilians. In the New York Times, please go to

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/world/middleeast/israel-prisoner-release-settlements.html?_r=0

Most of the prisoners have been serving between 19 -28 years for murder. Unfortunately, these murderers are not only free but are allowed to live anywhere in Israel,Gaza, and the West Bank. As stated in the NYT “These people will be neighbors of the families of the victims they murdered.”

Israel has been constantly asking for the release of Pollard. The truth is that they requested Mr. Pollards release after each and every time Israel has released its own prisoners.

The statements that I stated Unfortunately, were 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcepeci (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

pLEASE ALSO GO TO

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/12/israel-under-pressure-from-obama-releases-palestinian-jihad-murderers-from-prisons-palestinians-gree.html

The following article from the guardian also talks about American pressure to release

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/israel-approves-release-palestinian-prisoners — Preceding

Please tell me your opinion. Thank you for listening. Also, please go to http://www.jpost.com/International/What-about-Pollard-Mr-President-320776

unsigned comment added by Mcepeci (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me your opinion. I would like to know what you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcepeci (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Portable photoshop
Those portable programs were not created by us and come from the previous versions of the adobe photoshop website. They made the portable programs to the photoshop so that people who can't purchase the software can use them for as long as they want. Their original install-able versions have a limit of 30 days until they have to purchase and I noticed it in their blogspot websites. Why are you thinking those links contain pirated software from their companies?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Domino masks
Why did you remove the 'Notable fictional users' section in the Domino mask page? What does the 'review button' have to do with the removal of this section?

Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Bye Bye Love (The Everly Brothers song) and Honey (Bobby Goldsboro song)
Please explain what this means 'It's not about an actual person but a fictional account' (regarding 'Honey (Bobby Goldsboro song)' and 'Article does not support this category' (regarding 'Bye Bye Love (The Everly Brothers song)'.

These songs, to me, are in memory of deceased persons, as they're both about loved ones who've died.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

i just do for fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sot plug (talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons
So what you're saying is 'Bye Bye Love' is not about someone dying but rather the lover leaving the narrator (even though the lover is still alive).

As for 'Honey' (Bobby Goldsboro song), when you say 'account of someone dying', does this mean someone thinking a story of someone dying? I know said category is for people who have actually died, not for people who others think of dying.

You might have seen that I gave this category to the song 'Everything I Own', and are OK about that since that song sort of is about a person who has actually died.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Domino masks (Notable fictional users)
A lot of those fictional characters do wear Domino masks, for instance:

the Beagle Boys Darkwing Duck Dumping Jack Trash The Lone Ranger Repo Man The Riddler Robin The Spirit all four of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Yosemite Sam Zorro

Oh and The Hooded Claw wears one.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Protect article
Hey man, how are you? I know that you take a look at a lot of MMA articles and do a great job with it, but I need some help. If you have contact with some of the moderators that cover MMA articles to protect some articles or maybe a better way out by stopping the IP 24.143.37.131. Check his updates on The Ultimate Fighter: China and List of UFC events. He's simply messing around with updates and it's awful to correct those things all the time. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons
It does make sense that this category doesn't apply to songs that are about people who have just left their lover for someone else, as the person obviously hasn't died (I know this is why you didn't appreciate me adding this category to 'Bye Bye Love'). I now know what you mean by 'account', regarding the song 'Honey'; again, this category doesn't apply to songs that people sing when thinking about someone dying, since the person hasn't actually died.

As for 'Everything I Own', you might have seen that excruciatingly distressing commercial - 'Share the Road to Zero', where it's sung in a monotonous sort of way, as such a song makes sense for commercials about loved ones dying (it even says that 'David Gates sung it as a tribute to his late father'). This is why I added that category to that song.

I know songs like 'I'll Be Missing You' definitely belong to this category, as everyone knows that this song was in memory of a deceased person, namely 'The Notorious B.I.G.', who was murdered on Sunday 9 March 1997.

I do know a song I could add to this category, but I know I can't if only I think it's of this category, and no one else does.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Old Fashioned
its not letting me post links but if I could email you I could show you my books on amazon and my paid articles and my podcast etc.... you are making things difficult for me to progress my career, but I am not doing that for you, what have I done to you?

whats your deal? be real, what did I do to you for you to discredit and disrespect me so greatly? I do not wish ill on anyone intentionally, so help me help you and stop removing my edits. I written 66 books on the subject. or what about the 250 articles I was paid to write? or maybe the online bartending school I run or perhaps one of my many youtube videos or maybe my podcasts? or work history? really bro?

So wouldnt it be safe to assume if I was not the worlds leading expert that I atleast am one of them and my edits should be added and my information is valid. Infact, many of the books listed on the old fashioned page are used as references in my books, so BY YOUR LOGIC the page must be removed. You see? So either let me post, or remove the page, otherwise you're just being childish and holding some personal grudge. I have written more on this subject than any of the peoples books listed in the references COMBINED! show me some respect huh?184.190.80.94 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)r
 * SQGibbon, for the record, I don't think you're fat at all: you are just the right weight for a person your size. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mixed-martial artists
Please see the "Mixed-martial artists" section of WP:ANI. Basically, I couldn't understand why you considered edits by 24.186.49.59 to be blockable vandalism (especially without warning the user), but I know that MMA is contentious in ways that I don't understand, so I've asked for outside input. Your actions are basically a side item; I'm not objecting to anything you've done. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I misunderstood your rationale, not understanding the connexion with the blocked user.  Your explanation helped me realise that this was a sock of a blocked user (I thought you meant that he was returning to vandalism immediately after the block), so I've blocked the IP address.  Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Mai mai Miracle
Wikipedia for sometime has had what they call reflist, try as I might I have no idea how to add references to it. The reference I had added was of a kickstarter campaign if you want to help then would you please add it. Do not just remove with it without reason. DreamsDreams (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)DreamsDreams

User:HappyLogolover2011 again
Look what I just reverted at the Clitoromegaly‎ article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I also left a note about it in the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Ok sorry man! --Punk35showoff (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Educational Game
Thanks so much for your work on Wikipedia and for your attention to this entry. Just wanted to let you know that the edit was reverted because this was done in a Wikipedia Education Program class project [|Interactive Technology & Pedagogy graduate school class] by a graduate student Cshanesimpson (taught by Theredproject) working in this academic area. Your comment about the need for summaries rather than primary sources is a good point, but in this case (and since we couldn't immediately identify any suitable source to fit this), for now, I think it would be best if the references to current research studies remain. These are really useful to people investigating this subject so it would be helpful to have this available. Later on we can change this. But in the meantime if you have any suggestions for Cshanesimpson (talk) and me please let us know. Greatly appreciated!!! Mozucat (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Hello! can i uploaded this image of wikipedia? this is the image: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/File:RAW_1056_Photo_270.jpg Let me know goodbye --Punk35showoff (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Frogs run over by tires of vehicles
You've reverted an edit to Kermit Swamp Years. Croaker has organs and stuff including the body fluid and blood in his body to keep him alive. If frogs like him get run over, he can die and destroy his body and organs because that tire is larger than a frog.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert to Peer Pressure
I apologize, I am new to Wikipedia (I created an account for a graduate school project), and I did not notice your revert or comment the first time. When I returned to the article a couple of hours later to correct a grammar mistake and noticed my edit was gone, I thought that I must not have posted correctly the first time, and so I posted again.

However, I do feel that all of the information which I added was relevant. There was only one reference, but that reference was a textbook, which contains ideas and information from numerous sources. There is hardly any information on that page as it is, and I feel as though the forms of pressure might require a more in-depth explanation for some people to understand them. - spayne0870 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2014

Missing white woman syndrome
There have been some edits and reverts to Missing white woman syndrome that you have been involved in. I have started a discussion at Talk:Missing_white_woman_syndrome and it seems the other editor and I are in a deadlock. I think an extra opinion would help resolve the dispute, so would you be willing to review the comments on the talk page and perhaps offer an opinion? Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Child Recovery
I have attempted to enter factual news-based information regarding ABP World Group. Because this organization exists outside of the US and acts outside of international law, nothing posted about their actives should be considered personal. Just as you would not sensor a post about an entertainer being sent to prison, you should not censor factual information about this well known figure.

I also attempted to post reference links, but apparently the information provided was not satisfactory. Do you have suggestion as to a better means of citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.62.241 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ZZ Top
Information about city in which ZZ TOP was formed was provided in first half of 90's in one of the "MTV's Coca-Cola Report" program if I remember correctly. It is also listed as El Paso in Wiesław Weiss "Rock Encyklopedia" (Iskry 1991) (in polish)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyo (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes but this source in Poland was done by competent music journalists and was based on several other sources written in english. Since I saw this both in encylopedia and MTV it must be something more into that. I may try to contact author if he is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyo (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Y'All
Sorry to step on ones toes but it has been stated for quite some time in the talk section about the origins of the word. It should be mentioned in the article somewhere. Possible making in the article with both origins. The OED does say it came from 1909 but History Channel and other sources have found letters using it going all the way back to 1737. The History Channel does nothing but find information like this for the documentaries so I do have some faith in them. The OED does as well but they might not have found these writings when they put it in the dictionary. Generally a contraction replaces one letter so thinking that Y'All is shorthand for You All doesn't make any sense. The middle English word Ye means you so it makes far more sense it came from Ye All instead of You All. It is okay to put both meanings in there instead because when one does a Google search the top articles are staying it came from Ye All and then there is Wikipedia that says other wise followed by user forums. --96.32.46.89 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Travis Smith

My edit of the Color Me Badd page...
To be honest, I had forgotten all about that. I was showing my nephew how to edit something and forgot to change it back. Then, to make it even MORE asinine, I didn't notice your message to me until today. Go me. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobra McJingleballs (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thought
BTW -- I'm fine (at least to the extent I've thought it through) with your deletion of ethnicity from a lede, per the MOS. But I would also be fine with it as it was, for a major league baseball player where the ethnicity (as there) qualifies him to play for a certain nation in the World Baseball Classic (as was the case there). I think that's in line with the MOS, which indicates that ":Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)" should be reflected, and that "Ethnicity ... should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." The same would hold for athletes that participate in Maccabiah or the like. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake
I changed a part of the info of the Nicole Kidman's biography because there is an official source that says that. Kidmam reveals to a journalist that her real born name is Hokulani and she really born in Oahu Island, Hawaii. This is the source, the page is in Spanish. E! Entertainment Televisión Argentina: http://la.eonline.com/andes/2014/nicole-kidman-confeso-no-ser-australiana-ni-tampoco-llamarse-nicole-kidman/ El Espectador: http://www.elespectador.com/entretenimiento/arteygente/gente/nicole-kidman-revela-no-se-llama-nicole-articulo-491173 Waiting for your answer please about it. I just want to support Wikipedia with current information. Please correct your mistake inmedeately. Thank You. --Josuecedeno1 (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609151676 your edit] to Luke Barnatt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and began playing many sports from a young age, including basketball, cricket, and track and field . Barnatt also trained in Tae Kwon Do, achieving the rank of yellow belt after a year. http:

Negroni cocktail
Hello SQGibbon, I'm a newspaper reporter researching the Negroni cocktail. I see that you've deleted posts from the Negroni family (with whom I've spoken) about their alternative theory of the origins of the drink. Can you tell me why you've done so? Also, how confident are you when it comes to the Count Camillo origin? Thanks, MrkHay302 MrkHay302 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks so much for your response, SQ.

Memo for SQGibbon and Denisarona Subject: Negroni Cocktail

First of all I want to apologize for my fellow wikipedians for providing edits to the Negroni Cocktail Page that you object to. It was not my intent to provide "disruptive editing" nor to trample on the Wikipedia norms. I fully understand that the reason why I received warnings, is because I repeatedly added material, despite the objections of others. I know that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, meaning that when we have disputes, we should not simply edit back and forth. I am reaching out to you to see if we can resolve this dispute. I know that Wikipedia does not know the credentials of authors, and in fact does not pay much attention to them. This is because Wikipedia relies on citations to reliable, third party sources like scientific journals, newspapers or blogs with editorial structures, books, and so on. The reason the material is being removed is because you are adding it without reference to secondary source material. With that in mind, I would like to plead my case before my fellow wikipedians.

I have great reservations regarding the person known as Count Camillo Negroni for several reasons:

1. In our family genealogical records going back to the 11th century, there no one by the name of Count Camillo (Sources: Authier, Michel et Alain Galbrun, Etat de la Noblesse Francaise Subsistance, 1940-1993, pp. 153-160; Cere, Luigi Arturo, Storia dell'illustra famiglia genovese dei Negroni, Genes, 1927; Negroni, Francois Marquis de, de Negroni de San Colombano Family Archives: Negroni, Roch Pascal Marie Cyr Marquis de, Histoire de l'Ancienne Seigneurie de San Colombano ou Capo Corso et de Capraia, Imp. Lavalloise, Laval (Mayenne), 1896, 311 pages: Pazzis, Henry de Seguins Pazzis d'Aubignam Marquis de, Genealogie de la Famille Negroni et ses Alliances, 1980, 315 page manuscript prepared as one of the requirements to become a Knight of Malta; Negroni, Hector Andres, 1938- The Negroni family : genealogical, demographic, and nobiliary study from its 11th century origins to its 20th century branches in Italy, France, and Puerto Rico Madison, AL : H.A. Negroni, [1998], 149 pages : ill., maps ; 28 cm, Library of Congress Control Number:  98119631

2. The paper back book by Luca Picchi, Sulle tracce del conte. La vera storia del cocktail «Negroni» is nothing more than a marketing pamphlet to promote visits to Mr. Picchi's bar in Florence.

3. Despite numerous requests, Mr. Picchi has nor provided our family with birth, death or genealogical information on "Count Camillo Negroni." As a result, we can only conclude that "Count Camillo is a result of Mr Picchi's fertile imagination.

On the other hand, to support our thesis, we can provide ample genealogical information on General Pascal Olivier Comte de Negroni. He was real person with real accomplishments. Tell me what you need and I will provide the information for your examination and evaluation. Additionally, there was a newspaper reference to Pascal's invention of the Negroni cocktail (Source: “Corse Matin Sunday Edition," 2 February 1980).

As an amicable resolution to this issue I recommend that we place both theories being equal in value and let the readers make up their mind.

I can also provide you with my CV if you desire.

Respectfully,

Colonel (USAF-Retired) Hector Andres Negroni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanegroni (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

from john graham, is this how I correspond with you?
Thanks so much for your patience with me. I did not know about "talk pages" -- I thought I just had the few key strokes to explain myself and the entry.

The new strategy (or theory) of negotiation, INVENTIVE NEGOTIATION, is ours and is based on the integration of the ideas we cite in the entry -- Raiffa, etc. and Silicon Valley, Japan, etc., and 30 years of academic study of the phenomenon. I also guess you could say we borrowed it from the Japanese. The thinking is detailed in our new book, Inventive Negotiation.

I would assume that WIKI readers would be interested in new fundamental views about a phenomenon, but I would not expect them to know about it until they have read the new book.

As to the "undue weight criticism" -- I think I put it in the right place. Perhaps there is a better place for it on the page? New ideas, or something?

As the "undue length" -- I feel it needs the added explanation and citations because it is new, and the sources deserve credit.

As to the conflict of interest criticism, I can understand why one might conclude that my self interest/promotion motivates the entry. However, what is important here is the idea itself, not the authors. Father Gregory Boyle at Homeboy Industries, for one, would testify that this third approach saves lives. The problem with both distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining is that they do not work very well. Indeed, most people around the world focus on relationships, not transactions. The literature on negotiation in the US suffers dramatically from a dangerous, even fatal, ethnocentrism. We detail this argument in the book. But it is based on 30 years of studying how others around the world negotiate.

Now may I ask for your help here. How should I introduce a new (disruptive) idea to a Wikipedia audience? We are trying to save lives and global resources here. Please help!

Thanks, John Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by John L. Graham (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Thankyou for starting a conversation here about your proposed addition to negotiation. This should be applauded. Please do not, however, reapply your edit before there has been discussion with other concerned editors. I.e. you should give SQGibbon some time to respond. How long should you wait? That is highly subjective, but I tend to wait between a week and a month depending on the edit. It is probably also worth pointing out that the article talk page may have been a better location for this conversation as it is easier for multiple editors to keep apprised.
 * In terms of the merits of your edit, thank for being honest about your relationship with the material and the aims of your editing. Unfortunately, at this stage I do not think you should be editing on the topic of your own book. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, advocacy, or original research, and your edit is pretty clearly all three. Really the best course of action would be to promote your book and views through other avenues. Should it receive sufficient notoriety and third party verification it will naturally come to be included in Wikipedia. If you really want to do something now, it might be acceptable for you to add a note to the negotiation talk page suggesting the coverage of "Inventive Negotiation", but you will have to make it clear that it is a reputable perspective and not just spam (e.g. detail any peer reviewed coverage of the topic that there might be).
 * Anyway, I hope this helps and best of luck with your editing. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Jermaine Jackson
Jermaine Jackson changed his name to jermaine jasksun. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/jermaine-jackson-changes-last-name-to-jacksun-20130223 just due to your ignorance you cannot alter wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.100.64 (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sex Doll
Hi!

I don't understand your removal of either Removed image "Sandy" points out rust on a car for an ebay advert and achieves notoriety in the press and on internet with speculation as to whether she is a sex doll or not. . .]] or the photograph of "Sandy on her day off" either of which are current examples of the subjectmatter.

Dollist (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You will see from http://dollforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=143&t=54281 that the story is quite unique in its reach in the history of sex dolls and their use by photographers as posable mannequins. The ebay page received 40000 visits during the week and the story being published by major newspapers, The Daily Mail, The Mirror and The Metro in the UK and London, the image and story was seen by not merely hundreds of thousands but millions of people. It has been syndicated throughout VolksWagen dealerships also. The image of "high quality sex doll" at the top of this page is a disgusting and revolting example bringing "sex dolls" into disrepute, and whilst it might have been a fair example a few years ago, it is far outdated now, as the photos of "Sandy" picked up by the newspapers and internet sites demonstrate.

Dollist (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your helpful and guiding comments which are noted. Very much a matter both of enthusiasm combined with, and therein the danger, knowledge garnered from the forums and personal experience of such over many years - but in that is experience which can assist in guiding the subject helpfully within appropriate standards of citations and neutrality. The files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandydayoff.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandyrust.jpg are now restored and in the public domain and I submit are useful (a) as a current example of a "high end" doll rather than a former generation, or as a contrast showing the development from only a few years ago, and (b) in their capacity to be used for modelling art and photography rather than as purely sex function objects. Having provided these into the public domain, perhaps can I leave it to you to consider how best they might be used most usefully within the subject?

Possibly a caption such as. . . Removed image

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollist (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to sign.

I hope these images are potentially useful: "sex dolls" have moved on beyond imagination and they illustrate the new generation of posable mannequin far from that arguably deserving ridicule in the past.

Dollist (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Having found learned analysis http://www.ejhs.org/volume15/Bare.html about the problems of the sexual imbalance currently in China and leading to a fast emerging sex toy industry seen as a pacification of the problems caused, it seemed appropriate to introduce https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandyrust.jpg to the page in the context of the new breed of sex-dolls that are emerging within this market in response to the demographic issue. In view of the significant visual improvement from the older generation of sex doll illustrating the top of the page, perhaps consideration might be given for this more attractive example to illustrate the article. I have used an abbreviated caption hopefully with the same sentiment of meaning implied before.

Dollist (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Different languages of the Sex Doll page accessible through Google Translate vary from straightforward stubs such as https://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manikang_pantalik to direct translations of the page to pages with expanded sections - such as Sex Dolls in the media for instance including pop groups and in particular the Japanese film Air Doll in 2009 (from memory French and German versions) to the Czech page which is arguably imposing judgment on users of sex dolls and justifications with "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" and focusing only on Inflatable dolls without mention of Silicone dolls https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafukovac%C3%AD_panna. The page https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BAp_b%C3%AA_t%C3%ACnh_d%E1%BB%A5c features a photo with a doll tied up, mixing a BDSM connotation with sex dolls which is not universal.

Personally I find the doll example on many pages Removed image rather gross - and for that reason potentially prejudicial within the subject - but without consensus this is a subjective opinion. I do note however that the example photograph is of a 2006 model and Sandy Removed image demonstrates significant advancement of the genre over the intervening years.

Dollist (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oleksiy Oliynyk / scarf hold headlock
I think it gets pretty evident that if both Oleksiy and Anthony say it was not a neck crank, it was really not a neck crank. The source we included there says so. As for calling it a scarf hold headlock, if you checked side control / kesa-gatame and Kesa-gatame, what doubt can there be? The position is explained, you get to see photos, both articles have sources... how is it not enough?Psycho-Krillin (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) You cannot call it a neck crank when Oleksiy says "It was not a neck crank despite what they announced". The source clearly states that. Call it simply a submission, then! Psycho-Krillin (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS
editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions

Seems clear. I urge you to self-revert as otherwise you may be viewed as engaging in a deliberate edit war. Cheers.

John Cage, 4'33"
Hello, I'm curious why you edited out the mention of a cover of 4'33" with this comment:

"Does not appear to be a notable performance by a notable group as discussed by an independent and reliable source."

The band is an actual band on an actual label with actual, pressed CDs. It's not a performance, but a recording, and the section is titled "Performances and recordings".

There are plenty of sources showing this, even if one were to ignore the length and content of the track.

Morbii (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jadoon Article
Dear SQGibbon - I chose you because once you helped me understand the Wikipedia editing process, and which I now follow - one of the wiki contributors - Sitush is threatening me with sanctions for contributing to an article on Jadoons. This is a genuine Pashtun tribe, but on which the writings were written mostly from Persian translations during the British colonial era, like many of the Pashtun and other tribes through out the world. It is not my fault that there are not current people studying this tribe or writing about it. But what earlier people have written about it should be allowed to stay. Where am I making the mistake? There are many tribes in the Afghan-Indo Continent metioned on Wikipedia that were written only during the British Colonial encounter - why are they allowed to stay and not this one. Thanks - sorry to bring you into this. ~ Mulberry sky.

Please stop
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Rashad Evans because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Rashad Evans because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message. Thanks!208.67.104.4 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

America's Team
Hi there SQGibbon. I'm RyAce77. I've been adding the additional remarks to the article "Americas Team." Even though the term America's team was coined for and is oft applied to the Dallas Cowboys, the term is not definitive. In other words it is often argued, especially by those of a non-Dallas fanbase, that they are not always considered "America's Team." This idea and controversy needs to be highlighted in the article. By leaving out these noted challenges to this term, you are leaving the article with a one-sided bias not allowing others to see that the Cowboys are not solely considered Americas team and not always thought of as such.

I think it is good to show the history of the term and also that the Cowboys do hold that nickname but I also think it is worthwhile to show how the term has evolved and what people currently think about it of which information I applied with linked references. I apologize for the many edits as I'm just now learning how to use Wikipedia and have just created an account. I've been reading up on on ownership of articles and editing policies as to contribute properly. Thank you for showing me about talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyAce77 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Vigmans draughts and 8x10 draughts.
I have a source in russian. Is it OK? Bars 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bars 23 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete/Reverts
Dear Mr. SQGibbon Thanks for your contribution. You have deleted some kind of Basic information. But that was 100 right. You should be learn that, this is Bangladeshi article and here is 90% people are Muslims. But you have deleted the information of religion (like as Muslim) and Birth date. Plz see the other related language article and read the article first then delete or revert. Thank you. &mdash;  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 07:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
This is not vandalism! This is edit-warring. --174.88.148.78 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

man010sallow
ok how do I do a consensus or whatever on my phone? and brown eyed handsome man is Rock n roll, not R&B and anyone will listens to it would know, tell me how I do what ever I have to do for you to stop bugging the hell out of me! I use my phone all I see is an edit button and an optional explanation, how do I make edits to genres that are incorrect?! how do I get source to decide what genre a song is? that's not something you can source, you just listen to it, if it says R&B but it sounds like Rock N Roll Why not put rock n roll there??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man010sallow (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not spamming
The references/bibliographic contents I have added in the pages are in direct relation to the topics in question. This is undoubtedly not any spam or promotional content. Without knowing the history of the Indian subcontinent or the history of Colonial Bengal, do not revert changes to the bibliographic contents or references to the pages. Thank you, --User:Locomotive999

Absolutely ridiculous
I don't mean to sound offensive, but I strongly advise you refrain from editing articles that concern MMA. You clearly do not know what you're doing. Sherdog does not always have everything right, UFC's official profiles are much more relevant than what sherdog claims. We look at sherdog only for their MMA record, not their biographic info. Looking at your talk page, you've managed to annoy MANY other users as well. Please just stop. 99.227.161.131 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

question
Where can I find the community consensus you spoke of on why sherdog is the go to source? Thanks. 99.227.161.131 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My Question !
Hello ! Why a database with all tone rows of schoenbergh, berg and webern and many others till now registered and searchable in the rubric: "Search the database for musical information" be inappropriate for the schoenberg, berg and webern - wikipedia -sites? Did you really get the content of this database so quickly, that you should be allowed to remove it ? Certainly i don't want to spam there. Paramelin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramelin (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank You for Your explanation sent to me ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramelin (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits - American Football
Thanks SQ - I'll re post with some outside coverage ref - - this league is stunning in that it influenced many IDP scoring strategies that are widely used now, decades ahead of the majors. Additionally, the continuity of the league is unique and contribution to scoring techniques is widely used. I am unsure if I should include the ref to the league as it now exist on the web for folks to see. . . your thoughts? I am new to posting on wiki so I only today saw your message.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foote1861! (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1/6 SQ 0- I'll get the links from a few other published sites - honestly - there is a lot to question in this post - big fish always like to lay claim to little fish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.198.216 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASQGibbon granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 15:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

you are part of isis
Couple of days ago u threaten me to give u Ebola and if I don't you were going to destroy the white house Sayes77 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

you are part of isis
Couple of days ago u threaten me to give u Ebola and if I don't you were going to destroy the white house Sayes77 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Tatro Picture
You tell me that that is not how you put a picture up so inform me on how to so I can. Thanks

Relisting Criitzer
I have relisted Criitzer for deletion with some more information, and am notifying related projects and users. Articles for deletion/Criizter (2nd nomination) &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bas Rutten. 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: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. TL22 (talk</i>) 22:52, 4 April 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.

Faujdarhat Cadet College
Please edit Faujdarhat Cadet College properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.14.145 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Vocativ
Thanks SQGibbon: not a sock puppet or a puppet of any kind. I do care about the truth as justified by the sourcing and Wiki policy. I would like to propose that Intermittent Gardener is actually a sock puppet-- clear evidence of this based on the very innocuous and completely pro-company material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaibenachimshlomo (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DFW Page
i would like a legitimate reason why you have twice deleted my addition to his page... if you feel the wording is wrong then edit it, but if your claim is that it is an "opinion" of mine that Wallace sought sincerity and truth in his works then i can point up 100's of examples that say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcnelson16 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Vocativ
Problems over at Vocativ again with a new sock puppet who wants to edit war. Very tiresome. Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Jason Aldean
I worked with Jason Aldean, so i wanted to clarify a few things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monte Willus (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dreyfus ethnicity
The family's ethnicity is French not Jewish. Judaism is only a religion not ethnicity. Discuss and stop mass reverting.--Opdire657 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Unfortunately, I have to state that you are not neutral and highly biased against him. If you want to be fair (which you should be, as you are editing an encyclopedia), you should also include not only the comments of his opponents but his proponents and he himself. You cannot regard those thoughts as "Fringe theory", as this is thought by many people in Middle East as well as in Turkey. Keep in your mind that he won the presidential election with 52% of the votes, furthermore his party won the current election with 41% of the votes, which makes his party still the biggest party in Turkey, therefore you cannot just regard those people's opinion as "Fringe theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.81.14 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What you don't realize is that I have absolutely no idea who this person is and I can't imagine that I'd care even if I did. All I'm doing is looking at the quality of the edits, their sources and the kinds of claims they are making, and your edits run contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You have removed claims that are supported by reliable sources without providing a Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your edit but have then introduced claims without providing a reliable source which is clearly against Wikipedia policies and guidelines (eg, WP:RS and WP:V). Please learn how to edit according to Wikipedia's policies and do not edit war WP:3RR. SQGibbon (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Help
SQGibbon, would you like to join in testing new copyright violation software? I notice that you reverted an edit that was both a copyright concern and, more so, a type of company promotional spam. Check it out User:EranBot/Copyright/rc. --Lucas559 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Destiny
That IP also failed to see that what he put was already in the article (and sourced). -- JDC808  ♫  20:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

McGuinness
Hi SQGGibbon. Sorry to raise this after 1 year. You quite rightly asked why awarding Dr A.E. McGuinness the Military Cross was worth a mention. McGuinness was one of the vary few totally unarmed men in WW2 to be decorated. McGuinness worked in casualty clearing stations during the battles along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea. These battles took place in the most impenetrable and infested jungles on earth. Twice, at Saputa and Eora Creek, his makeshift triage and emergency aide posts were in immediate danger of being over run by the Japanese, both times the stations were ordered to be evacuated, leaving behind anyone who could not walk or be easily carried. Those left behind would have been slaughtered. Both times McGuinness refused to abandon his care and continued to work until the enemy was repulsed. His citation mentions both stations. The effect on morale of this brave, unarmed and (to quote the citation) unselfish doctor was a huge boost to those fighting. He was not eligible for the V.C. which is only given for a single act of bravery in the face of the enemy, above and beyond the call of duty. The M.C. Was the highest award for his behaviour, and most unusual for an unarmed man. I feel that the citation should be re-instated. Cheers Historygypsy (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Higher Life Theology page
Dear SQGibbon,

I appreciate your desire to avoid Wikipedia getting spam material, which you expressed in your removal of my recent edit of the Wikipedia article on Higher Life theology, and which you stated again when another user, Didaskalos7, restored what you removed because that user believed it was solid material. While your desire is highly commendable, I would like to suggest that in this case it is unequivocally mistaken.

First, I would like to point out that, in addition to teaching seminary classes, I have spent countless hours studying this movement, and the relevant Scripture texts on sanctification, and thus am well aware of the relevant primary and secondary literature, having possibly examined c. 100,000 pages of it. I trust that you are similarly well informed and that is why you are involved in editing the article. Of course, we would do well to edit only in our areas of expertise.

Please note that the top of the page states: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

I added key literature with extensive citations to primary and secondary sources. For example, in the sentence:

"In the 1870s William Boardman, author of The Higher Christian Life began his own evangelistic campaign in England, bringing with him Robert Pearsall Smith and his wife, Hannah Whitall Smith, to help spread the holiness message."

I added citations from a scholarly and definitive doctoral dissertation on the Higher Life movement that dealt with, in about 100 pages each or so, with Boardman and Hannah and Robert Smith. The article also made reference to the Broadlands Convention, and I provided a scholarly source that has many pages of material on that convention. I find it incomprehensible that this material was removed.

In the critique section, I added two of the most central critiques of the Higher Life movement, and posted links to the web pages where those were available online. I also added the Higher Life responses to those critiques because I want the article to be balanced. I am very surprised that these were removed.

I added material and references by Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, and Anglican scholars. As someone who, I trust, has studied this field of theology, you know very well that the works I cited were some of the standard ones anyone who wishes to get into an examination of this historical movement must read. This is why I find it very difficult to understand why you would remove these references and improvements to the article and revert it to its far worse and far more incomplete state.

I believe that you were concerned that some of the sources were from a single website. If you find Warfield's Studies in Perfectionism online for free on some other website, by all means link to that one instead if the material is equally well laid out and equally readable. I found it very well laid out and readable on the site I linked to, and many people all over the world have found that site to contain excellent scholarship (as do, of course, many other websites.) If you find the doctoral dissertation by Ross somewhere else on the web, by all means link to that other website instead. I believe that anyone in this field would know very well that the sources provided are essential reading, which is why I confess I find it very strange to have everything added here deleted and the article returned to a worse state simply because I pulled doctoral material and theological journal material from a website that happened to have all of it on there.

You stated that you were not sure if the sources were reliable. There are thousands of references in the Ross dissertation, and many by Warfield, etc. also. If you can find a single one that is significantly out of context, then perhaps we should indeed be concerned about reliability. If you did not check the sources for the quotations--and usually doctoral students tend to be careful not to misquote people as their doctoral committees tend not to look well on such things--I am very surprised that you would state that the reliability of these sources is questionable. What were the sources you found misquoted? What percentage of the material was misquoted? What other scholars have complained about these sources misquoting?

Again, while I have no idea who you are, I would want to assume that you are editing this article because you are a scholar in this field. Whether or not you personally believe in Higher Life theology, let's work together to make this a better article rather than deleting useful scholarly information and leaving the work impoverished. If you think there are too many citations from one perspective, by all means please add scholarly ones from another point of view. Let's not just delete what clearly improves the article. Again, I appreciate the fact that you don't want Wikipedia spammed. I cannot imagine any scholar I know on this topic thinking that these additions were spam. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJBIBLE1611 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Immortality article
Dear SQGibbon, "could then be considered essentially" in the last sentence of subsection "Mind-to-computer uploading" in the article "Immortality" has no content whatsoever. It essentially means someone can then hold the belief that ... It also means at the same time that someone else can hold the opposite belief. So? Should I rather tag that sentence as "Clarify"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.233.39 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits to Pop music
How is it unconstructive to fix errors in references? I'm assuming your message left on my talk page is a template, as it makes no sense.

82.11.190.122 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Choco chip cookie.png
 * Apology accepted. I used to be an anti-vandalism user, even have the barnstar to prove it.
 * I can understand your assumption, I've been there.
 * For you:


 * 82.11.190.122 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would you Remove a Link?!
Seriously, your aren't A GODZILLA fan anyway so why do you care?! — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC) r

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

Mauricio Rua's page
A user keeps attempting to put information that cannot be validated as accurate on Mauricio Rua. He refuses to discuss this on the talk page (which had been discussed multiple times). We need this user to either abide by the rules or stop editing the page. Thank you.

It has been validated because i've posted the proof as an animated gif more than once, and you eventually acknowledged it. When you thought moderators weren't looking anymore, you started another edit war.

Now that you have repeatedly violated the consensus from January 14th i have responded to you on the talk page. 86.170.154.149 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As of writing this 153.48.247.250 at 20:43, 22 January 2016‎ has conceded(unsurprisingly not without more abuse) that Mauricio "Shogun" Rua did tap in his fight against Jon Jones and is including it in the most recent edit to Mauricio "Shogun" Rua's Wikipedia page. Assuming that 153.48.247.250 does not try to start yet another edit war, i am happy to acknowledge and support his concession. 86.170.154.149 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

McGregor blet
It was cited util this IP edit. I have re-added, without the John Kavanagh bit. Murry1975 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
I am going to give you the same warning as you are also edit warring! 71.166.33.65 (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Your recent editing history at Defecation 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 are 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. 71.166.33.65 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)