User talk:ThunderPeel2001

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 17:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Fair use disputed for Image:Watchmen 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Watchmen 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:BTBbeatdis.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BTBbeatdis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Watchmen 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Watchmen 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABC-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ABC-1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Phil Sandifer 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Terra obscura v2 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Terra obscura v2 4.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Web H amster 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Watchmen 1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Watchmen 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BTBbeatdis.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:BTBbeatdis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew W.K.
Your edit is a definite improvement over what was previously there. I'm still a little sceptical about the whole frontman bit - yes he has grown into the part, but that's quite a usual process in performing artists. It's not really worth making much of a fuss over IMHO. Similarly Steev Mike is hardly worth noting. But you've summed things up well. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see someone has removed the frontman bit. AWK has now posted a categorical denial. Maybe the whole thing could be summed up even more tersely, perhaps as "Identity confusion", dropping some of the SM detail. Can it be safely concluded, given the sources, that SM is just an early pseudonym? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya ThunderPeel2001. Please avoid replying to people's comments inline, paragraph by paragraph, as you did in this edit. It makes it unclear who wrote each paragraph to which you're responding, and when each paragraph was written. Instead, try to use threaded discussion indentation, as described at Talk_page. I took the liberty of refactoring your post to clarify the flow of discussion. Thanks so much, and happy editing! -Verdatum (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello ThunderPeel2001! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Mark Frost -
 * Pay attention to this bot, if these articles do not have references added in the text of the article using, your article will be deleted! Okip  02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GreyshirtIS.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GreyshirtIS.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anthony Robbins Foundation


A tag has been placed on Anthony Robbins Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: DeathSpank
Citations do not go in the lead of an article per WP:LEADCITE. If it needs to be referenced, it's to be referenced in the body of the article, which this edit (in which you call me a helpful idiot) already had (see the Development section). I've updated the lead per your last edit, but I should warn you of no personal attacks regarding the edit summary above. Please be civil. --Teancum (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Bradley Manning
Please don't attack other editors. We are all working to improve the articles. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In this instance an editor is explicitly pushing his own agenda above all else. I'd hardly call what I wrote an "attack", but it has been removed now. Is there nobody here ensuring that the truth is reported above individual opinions? Johnny &quot;ThunderPeel2001&quot; Walker (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed the personalized heading for you, the above was just a FYI and request not to do it again. See, we use user talk pages (like this one) to discuss personal stuff, and keep article talk for directly discussing the improvements we make to the articles. If you have a problem with Slim, for example, it's best to take it up at her user talk. You need to make the article improvement arguments at article talk, along with your suggestions. Refer to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:5P. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I just checked and see that you have over 1200 edits going back to 2005, for some reason I had assumed you were a newbie. Oh well, please don't take any of the above as patronizing, and it all still applies all the more since you've been around here a while. --John (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply any more to me because I've been around since 2005, it applies exactly the same as everyone else, but don't worry I didn't find it patronizing. It's sad to see the way Wikipedia has gone. Nobody gives two shits about putting up a good article anymore, it's more about putting up their own passionate beliefs. SlimVirgin undeniably edited the article to its detriment, but he's got more time on his hands, and is undo-happy. So, who wins? Not the reader of the article. The only time other people seem to get involved is when there's some sort of argument going on between people, but never over an article. Then, people don't have the time. Wikipedia needs to evolve or die, and be replaced by something else. Such a shame, but it was predicted from the beginning. Johnny &quot;ThunderPeel2001&quot; Walker (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Beck1221.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Beck1221.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Courtney Love/GA1
Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

/* Re: Buffy and Angel episodes Deletion */
I have userfied the article at User:ThunderPeel2001/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes. Still happy to review when you have something for me to look at. Spartaz Humbug! 05:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! When I find something for you, I'll pass it on. Thanks again. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I go down the same road, have you already tried to transwiki to the Buffyverse wikia or any other site? MrZaius talk  02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, yes I've tried transwikiying the page to the Buffy wikia. No luck whatsoever. Quite astonishing really. Link: [Buffy Wikia discussion] This is the problem with Wikia's -- it becomes the opinion of a tiny group of hardcores, and nobody else's opinion matters. These guys DO think it's relevant, but don't want to include it because they think it duplicates their "chronology" page. The fact that nobody is ever going to use their "chronology" page to view the episode ordering doesn't seem to bother them (the "chronology" starts thousands of years BC(!) and includes everything from non-canon novels and comics, to network promotional pilots). Very sad about the whole thing :( Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, i just created this page again, some errors may be there as i basically copy pasted it. The name is the same List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel Episodes --Adri1995 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not going to work dude. Lol ;) Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ResidualVMlogo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:ResidualVMlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Niihau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jurassic Park (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) 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella
In this edit you've added a notability tag for an article the vfd twice and the result was keep. Kinsella is by far the main intellectual in the anti-ip libertarian camp is quite notable. --MeUser42 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that I remain less than convinced. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Damaged Goods (record label), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Users (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) 11:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Twin Peaks
I've created an RFC about creating two season pages of two-season television series. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Showrunner
This is a grey area. As the NYT says: "Each show runner, as the executive producers who supervise the writers are called, has taken the show in slightly different directions". That is how we have described it. Simon was undoubtedly the head writer, but do you have a source that specifically says he was the only showrunner, and was officially considered as such? (I haven't finished the WTF interview yet). Gran2 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey! Well it's not all that grey, really. Showrunners are credited as Executive Producers, but not all Executive Producers are showrunners. Jim Brooks was not involved in the day-to-day running of the TV show (although he weighed in), and Matt Groening certainly wasn't appointed by Brooks as a showrunner, having no TV production experience at all! I've just finished reading John Ortved's book, so it's all very fresh in my memory. Maybe I can find a quote in there that explicitly states who the Showrunner was. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. If you could provide the quote that would be good (I don't have my copy on hand). I'm aware of the distinction generally but I've always been under the impression it never officially applied in this case, even if Simon did all the work, and like all from Jean/Reiss onwards they were EP and showrunners. But if this is the case then the issue is that it said showrunner rather than just EP. 1/2 are always listed as Groening, Brooks and Simon and that's how it should be here. So I'm going to replace showrunner with EP and when you've found the Ortved page/quote by all means add a second sentence saying that Simon was the sole showrunner. Gran2 22:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fantastic Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Sanders (director), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thick as Thieves (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) 13:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Spare Ass Annie and Other Tales
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Spare Ass Annie and Other Tales, appears to be directly copied from http://artandpopularculture.com/Spare_Ass_Annie_and_Other_Tales. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Spare Ass Annie and Other Tales if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoenix Festival, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marion and The Fall (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) 10:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beck1221.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Beck1221.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buchwald v. Paramount, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deposed (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) 12:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
A request for comment has been started on an issue you have been discussing at Talk:Doctor_Who. Blethering  Scot  21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peridon (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sidney Sheinberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazil (film). 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) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "the"
Per your edit to Doris & the Daggers, yes, the capitalisation of the t in "the" is common. However, we do not do this on Wikipedia per MOS:CT. Please read the link provided. Also, in prose, we don't capitalise the t anyway—see The Beatles for the main instance. Also, please do not re-capitalise the titles of websites if they don't use a capital t in the first place. Thank you.  Ss 112  04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I contest your changes. There is no manual of style which capitalises definite articles, so this is clearly a stylistic choice and not a mistake. (See also: MOS:AMP - also a stylistic choice.) Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I said the t in "the" is not capitalised per MOS:CT. That is a link to a Manual of Style page saying don't capitalise the t in "the" as it is a definite article, and articles are not capitalised in titles of works in English. So please don't continue to do so. Furthermore, a capital T in the word "the" is not a "stylisation"; some media outlets capitalise all words; that is irrelevant to our standard rules for titles of works. An ampersand is also not a "stylistic choice" if it is part of the title. Some works use "and"; some use "&". We don't choose for them, so MOS:AMPERSAND does not apply. If you want to reply, please reply on one talk page and don't spread replies between two. Also, you post at the bottom of someone's talk page, not at the top.  Ss 112  10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please curb your condescending and unpleasant tone. "What are you talking about?" is a rude and obnoxious way to start a comment. WP:AGF I don't know if you read the link you shared with me or not. Quote: "Conventional exceptions include most titles of creative works." In this instance it's clearly the intended part of a title of a creative work. Is it not? Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Incase you can't find what I'm referring to: MOS:THECAPS Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where am I being condescending? I asked "what are you talking about?" because I was confused about what you meant, not because I'm questioning what you're saying. The capital t in "the" is not consistently used in every source talking about the album; also per MOS:THECAPS, "however, some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage". Some titles; common usage. I see no common usage doing a simple Google search for "doris & the daggers" (with quotes). Some use "Doris & the Daggers", "Doris & The Daggers", "Doris and the Daggers". So I think the cover art and sensible use of MOS:CT applies. This album doesn't appear to be extremely popular so there is not a lot of coverage anyway. Regardless, there is no article of quality (i.e. has been edited by experienced editors and not just newly created) on Wikipedia that uses a capital T for "the" in the title of a work if it is not the first word. Please look at some featured articles and you will see what I'm talking about. That's what we do. You've been around since 2005; surely you have seen basically no titles using a capital t for "the" in titles.  Ss 112  10:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You also keep quoting MOS:THECAPS, but you're ignoring one of its examples: "Correct	(title): J. R. R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings." By your logic, we should capitalise the O and T because it's "the intended part of a title of a creative work" (even though I pointed out the capitalisation of such things is never consistent). They have not capitalised the O and T in "of" and "the" in The Lord of the Rings because it's not correct to do so. MOS:THECAPS does not contradict MOS:CT so please don't cite as if it does.  Ss 112  10:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, you're ignoring the first line MOS:THECAPS. "Do not ordinarily capitalise". Only some idiomatic expressions should not be changed. You have not given any argument besides "some sources capitalise the 't'" (when Google search results actually vary and are not consistent) and why this is an exception. Only in special cases do we make exceptions for the titles of works. This doesn't appear to be one.  Ss 112  11:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote: By your logic, we should capitalise the O and T because it's "the intended part of a title of a creative work" I have no idea what you're talking about. The intended title of The Lord of the Rings has always been The Lord of the Rings. Never The Lord Of The Rings. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to some sources capitalising the O and T in the title, which they do. Some sources capitalise all prepositions and articles in titles. Google it. You don't know what the intention of the artist who made this album is, as you are not them, so please don't imply you do. So you cannot say "Doris & The Daggers is the intended title!" WP:PROVEIT. That would require a direct source with the artist saying, "the T is capitalised".  Ss 112  14:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again you're not understanding what's happening here. This is about the intended title as set by the owner of the work -- not the artist (the artist may have a different idea, but the if the publisher overrides it, that becomes the official title). Domino Records are the owner of this work, and this is how the refer to it. Much how Allen & Unwin were the publishers of The Lord of the Rings, so setting the intended title. The fact that unofficial sources do not copy the intended title is not override the intended title of the work. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the artist's opinion matters more than what their record company does. I'm sure some editions of The Lord of the Rings capitalise the t and the o. In fact, I'd bet on it. As for this album, the label isn't even consistent with the title. The first paragraph of http://www.dominorecordco.com/uk/albums/10-01-17/doris--the-daggers/ : "Doris and The Daggers is worth the wait". The title has an ampersand in the title of the website and on the artwork. Then they're using "and". I'm done discussing this. See below.  Ss 112  15:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote: I think the artist's opinion matters more than what their record company does. That's not your decision to make. If Sam Raimi prefers The Medieval Dead to be the title of the third Evil Dead film instead of Army of Darkness (which he does), then Wikipedia shouldn't change the title of that well known film to suit his tastes. Quote: I'm sure some editions of The Lord of the Rings capitalise the t and the o. In fact, I'd bet on it. Really? How much would you like to bet? Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone. I am not going to take sides in this debate (in order to remain un-INVOLVED), but I was asked to drop a line because there was some concern about possible edit warring. There should be none of that. Until this disagreement is resolved the title should be left in it's last stable form. If you are unable to reach agreement I suggest moving the discussion to WT:MOSCAPS where you can request outside opinions. Or alternatively take a look at WP:DR for suggestions including a possible 3rd opinion. I do appreciate the fact that you are both discussing this on a talk page which is the right way to go about handling this and I thank both of you for your respective contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Army of Darkness
Hello! Good point on the title change. I do not disagree that this was on the poster (it most definitely is), but it would be better to get a stronger source. Like, the alternative title needs a source but context helps too. Was it released with this title for home video releases? UK only? I mean, it had this title at the the time, but I think it would be better to just expand on it and give a source that knows its called this. Does that make sense? As for your suggestions, you could use the Raimi commentary with the Cite AV media template, but its an annoying to use as you have to get the timestamp of when he says the information. As for citing yourself, it would be against WP:RS and WP:OR. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems silly. It's stable as it was. It's clearly true and so worth including. Removing true information because the source isn't perfect is ultimately detrimental to WP. It's not an untrustworthy source, it's just not perfect. Perhaps someone else can find a stronger one. Until then, I think it should be left on the page as it was. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not really matter if its true or not because its (sadly) not how wikipedia works) Per WP:VERIFY, "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.". Per the same source "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".". Also per Naming_conventions (films), "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. Using "The Seventh Seal" rather than "Det sjunde inseglet" makes the page easier to find with a search engine, since search engines often give greater weight to the title than to the body of the page. Since "The Seventh Seal" is the most common form of the title, it will be searched on more often, and having that exact string in our page title will often mean our page shows up higher in other search engines." The other titles you gave are minor and we can not even really source where they were or when they were referred to this title. If you can find some third party sources outside sales site (one wouldn't cite ebay, so why amazon?) then go ahead. In the meantime, I'd leave it as it is. When its discussed in Raimi's career or anything it is called Army of Darkness, not the other titles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've completely misunderstood my comment. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? I see you've added them back with a source, but I'd still like some context to them if you could add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BTBbeatdis.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BTBbeatdis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

July 2020
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (FBI files on Michael Jackson) for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please also note that your signature on posts does not comply with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P as it does not show your correct user name. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is only a nickname, not a fully customised signature. It is easy to identify my username. The only guidelines surrounding the use of nicknames states: "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents". It is only common practice, not policy. WikiMane11 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1112-videogame-logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:1112-videogame-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Entertainment Retailers Association
Re your message: Sorry about the delay getting back to you. Feel free to recreate the article. When I deleted it, it had contained nothing but a restatement of the article title of sorts. It would have fallen under CSD:A3 more than CSD:A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Your recent editing history at Sean Combs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is made in very poor faith, Dianna. You know as well as I that the three revert rule applies to the REVERTER (ie. you). This is not good and if other editors get involved, the fact that you tried to threaten me with an incorrect application of the rules (especially after I'd already told you I would not fight it further), shows you in a very poor light. WikiMane11 (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I only removed it twice. Another editor also objected and removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your message implies that you think your edits at Sean Combs were not reverts. Can you confirm that you understand that both of the following edits were reverts?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Combs&diff=prev&oldid=1178082179
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Combs&diff=prev&oldid=1178085902
 * Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would say the diffs to look at are these:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Combs&diff=1178084506&oldid=1177947456
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Combs&diff=1178085902&oldid=1178084506
 * Yes, they could be said to be technically "re-reversions" (in Wikipedia parlance), but they were also made in good faith (especially given WP:REVEXP was initially ignored). You can see they are not straight reversions of the original edit, but attempts to address the issues raised by the other editors by improving the quality of the sources. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Buffy The Origin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Buffy The Origin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your Signature
Hello, ThunderPeel2001,

I was looking at an AFD you participated in and found it very confusing that your signature says your username is "WikiMane11" when it is actually "ThunderPeel2001". This could be misleading and confusing to other editors. Can you either change your signature so that it reflects your username or change your username to reflect your signature? They should be in agreement so other editors know who they are talking to. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Liz, I shall not be doing that per the 2021 RfC on signatures which concluded that it was not a requirement for signatures to include usernames. Never-the-less, I have updated it slightly to bring it closer. Sorry! Hope it's not too confusing for you.
 * Relevant quotes from the discussion's conclusion to save you from reading it all:
 * "There is significant opposition to the point where it is clear there is a consensus that signatures are not required to display someone's username in its entirety, without changes."
 * "There is therefore no requirement that signatures be easily recognizable to a new user as referring to the username they link to."
 * If something has changed in this regard, please let me know. Thanks!
 * WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)