User talk:Taninao0126

January 2012
Your recent editing history at Jennifer O'Neill shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not add copyright violating images in the article or you will be blocked Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
They were right, you did compete in an editing war. Your edits were reverted because you didn't cite work and, according to the ANI, you threatened other contributors.

Abigail was here :D  Talk to Me.   Email Me.  03:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hi. I saw the copyright question that you put in your edit summary. Generally, edit summaries can be missed. It's best to ask them on your talk page.

Most images on Wikipedia (and all images on Wikimedia Commons) are expected to be under a free license or public domain. Being publicly published doesn't mean an image is public domain; copyright in most cases belongs to the photographer, and we need a licensing release from the photographer.

The exception here is where an image can be used under our "non-free content" policy and guideline. You can read these at WP:NFC. Movie posters are generally allowed for the purposes of critical commentary about the film; the poster you ask about is being used that way. You can read the "fair use rationale" at the image upload page: File:Summer_of_%2742.jpg. Every non-free image needs a rationale explaining how come we can use it.

Under our policies, we can almost never use images of living people under fair use (unless they are including in film posters or on book covers, etc., and are included in article talking about those films and books). As long as a person is living, there is the chance that somebody will take a picture of them that can be used under a free license.

You can read more about all of this at Image use policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

GREAT !!!! THANK YOU !!! I really do appreciate the information you supplied above. You have given me an answer to a matter I was confused about. So, my next question is, since Jennifer O'Neill is very famous for that movie, can I use that same movie poster image pic for her wikipage I contributed to? Please explain. Thanks!! Also, in a good faith attempt to comply with policy, I uploaded a pic of her at a public speaking engagement in Washington, D.C. at a prochoice rally, taken of her in public (but I do not know who the photographer was), but that was deleted too, making me confused and somewhat exasperated, maybe being a 1st timer and new. thanks for your time (see, I am not a child).

P.S. Also, you say, Hi. "I saw the copyright question that you put in your edit summary. Generally, edit summaries can be missed. It's best to ask them on your talk page." I am sorry to be so stupid, but I do not know what you mean by this. Can you explain ? How do I put it on my talk page? THANKS ! :)

P.P.S. Another question (not trying to be a pest) but from what you say above, can I use the pic of her that she has on the front cover of her 1999 autobio which is also discussed in the wikipage article and in my contributions ? I do not want to risk getting a blockl Please clarify. THANKS. !!!


 * What Moonriddengirl means is that rather than type the question into the Edit summary box underneath this edit window. Just type in to the talk page, much as I am doing now. Blackmane (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain how I do that (sorry), the talk page will not let me edit anything, but the edit tab will.


 * You're doing it now. :) This is what the edit summary box looks like:


 * It's a small box. The actual edit box for the page is a much larger one into which you've been typing this content. Edit summaries are great to explain what you're doing to people, but they are only available when people look at the "history" of a page (the history is a list of all changes made; for instance, this link is the history of your talk page).


 * I'm afraid that you probably can't use the picture of her from promotional material for her movies and her books in the article about her. There are very rare exceptions, but you'd have to have some kind of source talking about why that particular picture is important in that article. If you read over Non-free content, you'll see under "allowed images" that we do accept "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" (emphasis in original). More importantly, under "unacceptable", it says, "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." There is an exception where a person is famous specifically for their appearance and may be retired, but, frankly, I find that very hard to prove. :)


 * We have a lot of articles on living people that do not have pictures of them, even though it would be nice. We either have to take one ourselves, find one where the photographer will give us a license or ask the publicity agent to donate one. Sometimes that does work. We got a lovely picture of Maggie Roswell that well. But some celebrities prefer not to do that, since they have to not only allow us to use the picture, but donate it under a free license, which means that others can use it to. If you want to ask for one, you might read Requesting copyright permission. You'd have to get them to send a letter granting license to the Wikimedia Foundation, but you never know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl: I am new here, and so far you are THE VERY FIRST ONE, to have answered any of my questions, and done so in a very fantastic manner. THANKS ! I tried to get unblocked, but alas, to no avail, even though I know now what, how to do, and will be a good boy and contributor.

Something you should have gotten first thing
Welcome!

Hello, Taninao0126, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Reply again
GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
I am also a new user here. I felt the same way in the beginning, but after a while I realized that wikipedia is a big playground and not everyone is the same. Many pages are under heavy moderation. So, they check every editing you make. I guess this is their way of ensuring some quality in their articles.

Xareen (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

&#160;


 * There are some ownership issues sometimes too. Unfortunately. --Juice Leskinen (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Many people feel the same way, and it is true in many ways. As a newbie you are very likely to be pushed around by more experienced editors. The rule is: Keep calm and make friends who can support you in the future "wars".

Good luck!

Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

My Newbie Observations / Comments
As a "newbie" I have learned rather quickly (and which I really should not have expected any differently) that this place is really just a microcosm of life and people in general. Some people are just very, very nice helpful and great folks. There are others who are total jerks and arrogant assholes I waste my time with like arguing with a table. The trick is to discern the difference and not be like the latter. Taninao0126 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's Reply
GoingBatty (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What I sent to MikeWazowski
Hi...could you please communicate with me concerning the actress Jennifer O'Neill article ? I think I can address some of your points....For example, regarding the horse farm that has a link to it you say is not her website, yes, www.hillengladeHHH.com is not her website, but yes, in fact she does own this horse farm and it is specifically mentioned in her third party published William Morrow and Sons 1999 autobiography, so it is verifiable. Also, her official website www.jenniferoneill.com does have a link to www.hillengladeHHH.com so it can be verified. In fact, I had more detail on this point, but it was edited out by another user !!! So, maybe I should revert it on this point and put it back to remedy this situation for you. Please advise....

Please communicate with me, how can this article be changed to address your concerns? thank you. Taninao0126
 * First off, you need to stop removing the maintenance tags. They were added specifically because of your recent contributions, and your continued removal of them without actually addressing the issues is an action than can get you blocked should you continue. Given that your entire edit history has been one of promotion for O'Neil, I'm "this close" to adding a WP:COI tag to the article too. Now, given that five of the eight references to are to links either written by O'Neil or controlled by her, until reliable sourcing can be found from independent reliable sources, the tags for primary and self-published sources (similar, but different) will have to stay. The peacock tag is being worked on - it's one of the biggest problems with your additions to date, with such phrasing as "became an acclaimed Hollywood and television actress", "She has also had success...", or that extraneous personal quote section - this is an encyclopedia, not O'Neill's personal website, and as such, articles need a more unbiased tone, as well as the references to independent reliable sources - which at this time, is still sorely lacking. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Jennifer O'Neill, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My reply: You have only a single "citation needed" occurrence you tagged at the lead-in which I have corrected AND THUS ACTUALLY DID RESOLVE THE PROBLEM TO WHICH THE TEMPLATE REFERS, and removed the "multiple issues" tag, so any attempts by you to block me from further editing would be unjustified. With this latest threat, it would appear that you are the one who has fired the first salvo in a blatant and unjustified edit war. I have also just now formally requested editor assistance.
 * And I have replied there, with diffs to show that your version of the events in question is lacking. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Jennifer O'Neill. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply
GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:MikeWazowski, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. B music  ian  14:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Continued uncivility
Taninao, this is the kind of uncivility that will likely get you blocked. is one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors. I have joined with him in trying to explain to you the proper use of reliable sources to create neutral articles, but you have continually tried to turn the Jennifer O'Neill page into a fansite rather than a valid Wikipedia biography. Your latest addition seems to be a perfectly valid and cited fact, yet you choose to go on the offensive with a talk page rant. My suggestion to you is to just edit in peace, and discuss article content (not editor behavior) on the article's talk page.

There used to be a disclaimer at the bottom of the edit box when one was editing an article on Wikipedia that read something to the effect that "if you do not want your writing to be edited unmercifully, don't submit it here." (The wording has since been changed.) Basically the idea is that anything you write on Wikipedia is likely to be changed or improved or (often) worsened by other editors. You just have to have the tough skin to deal with that. If you feel an article's content is wrong, bring it up on the article's talk page. If you feel an editor's behavior is wrong, bring it up with the editor on his or her user talk page. If you can't resolve the issue civilly between yourselves, bring in third parties (see Wikipedia's dispute resolution process). But do not continue to attack other editors on article talk pages. That will get you blocked -- no question about it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia page rankings in a Google search
Following up on this question you asked me, I see that the Wikipedia page for Jennifer O'Neill is the second result when you search for her on Google and Bing, after her official web site. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Bedford, New York
Clearly, you have not understood the disambiguation needed template that was placed on the Jennifer O'Neill article. In this edit, you clarify that it is the "Westchester County town of Bedford, New York", but if you follow the link for Bedford, New York, you will find that there are two entities that can go by this name: the town of Bedford or the hamlet within that town that also goes by the name of Bedford. For non-New Yorkers, this confusion of town names and village or hamlet names can be very confusing. Basically, the hamlet is a small subsection of the town; the place that the Post Office would call Bedford, NY. The town of Bedford is a larger geographical entity, and (according to its website) encompasses three hamlets: Katonah, Bedford Hills and the aforementioned Bedford.

Given that the point in question in the article dealt with the police involvement in her shooting accident, and that, in New York State, policing is generally managed at the town level (hamlets are generally place names only, and have no organized government), I would guess, but can't confirm, that the Bedford in question in this case is Bedford (town), New York. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

My response to your question regarding the edits on Jennifer O'Neill
Please click on this to see my response to your question. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill
Do you do anything _but_ edit war on Jennifer O'Neill?

If she stated it in an interview, she claimed it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my wording. The point is, the source has no independent verification of that claim. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ANEW
I've closed the malformed report you filed at WP:ANEW. I've also warned you. Please read my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)